Misplaced Pages

:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:02, 24 June 2015 editWhatamidoing (WMF) (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,117 edits →Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe: I'll pass it along← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:04, 24 December 2024 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,689 edits →Suggestion to rename many criticism/controversies articles to include both concepts in name: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Village pump page header|Miscellaneous|alpha=yes|start=25|The '''miscellaneous''' section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the ], ], or ] pages, or – for assistance – at the ], rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the ].|WP:VPM|WP:VPMISC}} <noinclude>{{short description|Central discussion page of Misplaced Pages for general topics not covered by the specific topic pages}}{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{Village pump page header|Miscellaneous|alpha=yes|The '''miscellaneous''' section of the ] is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the ], ], or ] sections when appropriate, or at the ] for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the ].
<!--


Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.|WP:VPM|WP:VPMISC}}
<!--
-->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!-- -->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!--
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 9: Line 11:
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
}}-->
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}} |header={{Misplaced Pages:Village pump/Archive header}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=168 |age=192
|numberstart=44 |numberstart=44
|minkeepthreads= 5 |minkeepthreads= 5
Line 22: Line 23:
<!-- <!--


-->{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}__TOC__<div style="clear:both;" id="below_toc"></div>
-->{{cent}}__TOC__
{{Clear}}
<span id="below_toc"/>
] ]
] ]
]</noinclude> ]</noinclude>

== Any issues arising from the A/B Testing for VisualEditor? ==

Hey all,

As you may have seen, we’re currently running an experiment studying ]. The first half of the A/B test (in which half of all new accounts get the option to use VisualEditor automatically, and half stay not getting it) is now complete, and we’ve moved to the data collection phase of the A/B test. As outlined in the ], this phase will continue for the next week, and then we’ll analyse the data and post the results here.

To help inform us best, I’m very interested if any of you have noticed any problems that might have been overlooked by us, or which may affect the quality of the results and the conclusions we can draw. In the forthcoming analysis of A/B test data, we’re going to be looking for evidence about whether offering VisualEditor makes editing easier/more productive for newcomers, and whether it raises additional burdens (reverting damage, blocking vandals) for current editors. It’s particularly important to me that, before we start any conversations about offering VisualEditor to new users on a permanent basis, we have as much information as possible for everyone to make the best decision discussions.

Yours,

] (]) 01:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

:When did ever believe that you had gotten permission from English Misplaced Pages to ever enable that thing by default for ''any'' group of users for ''any'' reason? Did I miss something?&mdash;](]) 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Kww}} Hey, sorry for not giving links to where we've previously announced and discussed this – see ], ], ] and ], amongst others. As you know, we regularly run experiments and tests to make sure that we're doing the right thing, and this is just another part of that process. Hope this helps clarify things. ] (]) 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Still haven't seen any steps where you asked for community consensus to make it the default editor for any group of editors at any time. I understand that you normally run small experiments, but certainly you understand that reenabling something that caused so many problems before and was specifically ''rejected'' by the community is somewhat of a special case.&mdash;](]) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
::::Clarification ], they weren't making Visual Editor the "default", they're putting TWO edit buttons everywhere, side by side. I believe they they attach Visual Editor to the Edit button and move the editor an Edit Source button.
::::], I've identified a problem. The proposed setup makes the "Edit button" incoherent.
::::*Alice: I pressed the edit button and had a problem with ''blah blah blah''.
::::*Bob: Easy, just press the edit button and ''blah blah blah''.
::::Alice and Bob go back and forth for a week getting confused and angry at how stupid the other person is.... because you're giving different people different editors on the same button. You need to keep the Edit button connected to the current editor, and if Visual Editor is enabled then '''it needs to go on the second button with a different name''' (Visual Edit or something). ] (]) 15:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: I do have to agree that the edit labels should be different as it is confusing. COuld ''edit'' be kept the same and VE use a ''edit visually''? ] (]) 15:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::Not any time soon, unfortunately. Ultimately, the switch will be inside the editor, so the problem will basically go away. You can get an idea of what it might look like at ]. If this were working here, today, then you'd have one 'Edit' button, it would open in wikitext, and then you could switch to VisualEditor if you wanted. The next time it opened, it would remember which one you had used in your previous edit, and automatically select that for you. But this is definitely not going to happen soon. (As for keeping 'Edit' the same, it might be best to be explicit on both: 'Edit source' and 'Edit visually', with no room for doubt in either case. You can do that in your own CSS, but it can't be done sitewide because the same label is used for different things, depending on your prefs.) ] (]) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

== Hello ==

Please fix the problem with search function. Thank you. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Which problem would that be? Not everyone is experiencing problems. ] (]) 14:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::Everyone actually were at the time of the post but it's usually good to be more specific. Anyway, it has been fixed. See ]. ] (]) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:::See ] - unfortunately still ongoing work. --] (]) 07:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

==Translations==
Where can I find the imho handy translation tool~? On NL Misplaced Pages its this link: https://nl.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Speciaal:Paginavertalen&campaign=contributionsmenu&to=nl . And yes I will take care to not using machine translations. ] (]) 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:Hi ],
:] team has done some pretty awesome work with ], haven't they? But it's not available here at en.wp yet. I haven't checked their plans for a while, but I believe they're rolling it out to all of the mid-size and larger Wikipedias first, and that the English Misplaced Pages has to wait until the end of that process. I suppose if editors here kept requesting it (you're definitely not the first to ask about it), then he might move it up in the priority list. It would be a great tool for ], by making it easy to get (for example) more well-written, well-sourced articles about famous people from non-English speaking countries here. ] (]) 16:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::], thank you very very much for your interest!
::The plan is to make it available for translations into English this month. It is already available for translation from English to many other languages.
::Out of curiosity, between which languages did you want to translate? --] (]) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi ] and ], thank you for explaining. I am planning to translate from Dutch (my mother tongue) to English, especially for articles with could be of interest in the English version. The automated translations helps me, currently I am using sometimes Google translate. It would especially be usefull to be able to translate certain paragraphs, because many articles exist already in a shorter form. ] (]) 06:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

== A/B Testing for VisualEditor complete ==

Hi folks. About a month ago, that I'd be running a short A/B test with the VisualEditor for newly registered users. That test is complete and I have posted a write-up of the results on Meta. See ]. --] (]) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:What a boondoggle! The problem with VisualEditor is that's it's stapled on. Mediawiki and its markup and template systems were designed with direct text editing in mind. Heck, Wikimarkup doesn't even have a well-defined grammar! VisualEditor is really a prototype of what the ''successor'' to Mediawiki might look like. VisualEditor was an interesting ''experiment'' but nobody can say that trouble hasn't been evident from early on. Now that we have it, sure some people might use it but was it really worth so much effort and diverting resources from other areas in desperate need of attention? ] (]) 07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::I do not know of course how much effort was put in it, but I like the visual editor very much, especially the ease of making references to the sources I use! It costs much less effort to copypaste a single link then to type <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>, especially because this has recently been automated further. In addition, I am making far less mistakes, which I do/did when using the normal editor, because of ]. (ROFL. This makes me think of my own aversion against MS Word when I came from ] 5.1 with all its visible codes, I knew by heart). Thanks, developers. ] (]) 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Halfak}}, {{ping|JamesF}}: Most promising. Thank you for the update, and the fast turnaround! <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 23:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

== New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Available Now (June 2015) ==

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Hello Wikimedians!
]
Today ] announces signups for more free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our ]. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:
* ''']''' — academic publisher of journals. The pilot includes two subject collections: Arts & Humanities and Biological, Environment & Earth Sciences. (30 accounts)
*''']''' — digital platform containing all books, working papers, and journal articles published by the World Bank from the 1990s to the present. (100 accounts)
* ''']''' — general interest science publisher, who publishes the journal ''Science'' among other sources (50 accounts)
'''New French-Language Branch!'''
* ''']''' (]) — Érudit is a French-Canadian scholarly aggregator primarily, humanities and social sciences, and contains sources in both English and French. Signups on both English and French Misplaced Pages (50 accounts).
* ''']''' (]) — Cairn.info is a Switzerland based online web portal of scholarly materials in the humanities and social sciences. Most sources are in French, but some also in English. Signups on both English and French Misplaced Pages (100 accounts).
* ''']''' — French language publisher across a wide range of non-fiction and fiction, with a strong selection of francophone African materials (1000 accounts).

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on ], including an expansion of accounts for ] and remaining accounts on ], ], ], ] ] and ]. If you have suggestions for journals or databases we should seek access to ]! Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
<br/>--] 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:''We need your help! Help coordinate Misplaced Pages Library's account distribution and global development! Please join our team at ].''<br/>
:<small>This message was delivered via the ] tool to ]</small>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Sadads@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Wikipedia_Library&oldid=12455967 -->

== Navbox for a real estate company's properties ==

I'm looking askance at a navbox (in obvious need of being moved to a template) at the bottom of ] that lists a very large number of properties associated with that real estate developer and operator, about some of which there are articles. In one sense there's nothing unusual about this, collecting links to a large number of articles related to a single topic into a navbox. On the other hand, because this is a commercial operation, it smacks of a portal for doing business. Maybe I'm overthinking it. What do you all think? ] (]) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:Well that's fun. If it exists it should, as you said, be moved to a template and put on the properties that have articles. On the other hand, it does seem promotional. ~ '']''<sup>(]&#124;])</sup><small>]</small> 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's occurred to me to post this in a more topical location. (Not forum shopping: this obviously isn't a reaction to having received a pile of adverse opinions here!) If anyone sees this here and has a contribution for the discussion, please come over to ]. ] (]) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

== RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section? ==

is the RfC. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

== A veteran’s Misplaced Pages edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars ==

Hi all, I just published this of ] on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. ] (]) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

== Question about Diamond League results (grey marking in results table in article) ==

Hi, in ], some of the winners in the 'results' table are marked in grey. The article does not say what this means. Does anyone know? ] (]) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ssu}} Grey means it's not a Diamond Race at that meeting, i.e. it doesn't count in the overall Diamond Race of the year. There are 14 Diamond League meetings but only 7 Diamond Races in each event. See for example 100m Men (the first table) in . There are no entries for New York, Lausanne, Birmingham, Zürich so those meetings have grey for 100 m Men. I spotted two errors in the coloring. 100m Men Rome should also have been grey, but 200m Men Birmingham should have been white. Half the 14 meetings have a 100m Diamond Race and the other half have 200 m. Sprint is popular so many meetings also arrange an event at the other distance but the quality of the athletes is lower when it's not a Diamond Race. See for an upcoming meeting where Diamond Races are marked with a diamond as indicated to the right. The programme also has several minor events like for juniors or locals which will not be included at all in the table at ]. If others don't beat me to it then I expect to fix the errors and explain the grey (also for other years) later today. ] (]) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:I have now explained and fixed the grey backgrounds in ] and the other years which use grey. ] (]) 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you! ] (]) 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


== How do you choose which articles to work on ? ==
== Andriy Slyusarchuk BLP disturbingly bad article ==


Greetings! My question is the next. How do you choose the articles you want to work on ?
I used to edit fairly regularly, but don't anymore. However, I stumbled across the ] article, and it is so terribly, atrociously bad, especially considering its BLP status, I thought somebody should look at it. It's extremely long, full of straight up confusing, poorly written, unencyclopedic crap; I'm disappointed it's lasted so long in this form (only a couple edits in years). I always defend Misplaced Pages to its detractors, but when I come across something like this, I end up sorely disappointed in the system. One "copy-editing" tag at the top of the article is definitely, definitely not enough.
:::] (]) 04:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


In my case, it's simple. I read articles on topics that interest me and I read the related articles '''(For example, internal links)'''.
== Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe ==


If I don't have time to work on it. I write a note on my ] to work on it later. ] (]) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe NC.svg|thumb|The current situation of freedom of panorama in the countries of Europe.<br />
:I think that ''really'' depends on who you ask. ] (]) 22:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
'''The current report text would turn the map red or yellow for all EU countries.'''
:Everybody's different. Some people are on a mission to document every professional cricket player, every TV station, every species of reptile, every politician in their home country, etc, etc. I like to explore the history of where I live and as often as not, my interest in a topic is sparked by going past some building or park and wondering if there's more there than meets the eye. And, just like {{u|Anatole-berthe}}, my user space is littered with stubs of future articles that never went anywhere. ] ] 22:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{legend|#008000|OK, including works of art}}
:Aye, I figure that everyone will have different motives. I've ceased article writing because ] is also a list of articles I need to maintain, and it's gotten too long. Every year I do maintain that list. ] (]) 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{legend|#5D0|OK for buildings only}}
:Thanks to everybody for yours answers ! ] (]) 13:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{legend|#FE0|OK for non-commercial use only}}
:I'm a ]: I work on whatever catches my eye, most often merely to untangle awkward wording; though I pay more attention to areas where I think I know something, like ] and ]s. ] (]) 23:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{legend|#E10|Not OK}}
:What I like to do is to go to the list of all unreferenced pages (], and I select a random page and add a reference to it. It's not that important but it passes the time. If you want anymore help--] ] (]) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{legend|#C0C0C0|Unknown}}]]
] are not allowed to be on Misplaced Pages...]]
], but ...]]
] (England), ...]]
]
]


== MOS article title discrepancy ==
Hi all,


I recently learned that ] includes the article title guidance "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards". I encountered this when ] was moved to ] for this reason by ]. This seems to be contrary to the general rule of not using disambiguation unless necessary, and is also not in sync with other comparable guidelines like ] which follow the general rule. Is there a reason for this local consensus overriding the global one that I am missing? ] (]) 08:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
'''What is going on?'''<br />
:In the ] a proposal (amendment) has been submitted to limit the ] in Europe. The proposal is part of a larger plan to harmonize the copyright law in the various countries of the European Union.


:To be clear, I moved it from ] to ] after another user had objected to renaming it just ]. But as noted at ], there are some naming conventions that call for unnecessary disambiguation. The other thing people usually point to when disagreeing with ] is ]. Also, ] isn't a local consensus. ]&nbsp;] 08:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:If this proposal is adopted and implemented, it will mean that users on Misplaced Pages are no longer allowed to upload photographs of modern buildings or public works of art and use them in Misplaced Pages.
::Yeah, "local consensus" was not the right choice of words, I meant a more specific guideline overruling the general one and not being in sync with most other ones. ] (]) 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


But anyway, the question is, is there a good reason why the band, movie, album, book, .... "Peeling Onions" would all be at the title "Peeling Onions", but for the painting we need to add the name of the artist? ] (]) 09:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Even if freedom of panorama is allowed only for non-commercial purposes, this is an issue for Misplaced Pages. The current license under what we write Misplaced Pages, CC-BY-SA, is not compatible with non-commercial licenses, as they would restrict the re-use of the content.


:If there were two or more notable paintings called “Pealing Onions”, disambiguating by artist would be helpful.
'''Freedom of panorama?'''<br />
:Otherwise, we don’t need to be so specific. We can disambiguate as “Pealing Onions (painting)” to distinguish it from the book, album, etc of the same title. ] (]) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Photos of modern buildings and public art '''currently''' may be uploaded on Commons / Misplaced Pages and used in articles, only if those pictures were taken in a country that currently has freedom of panorama (FoP), at this moment 16 of the 28 EU countries.


See ]. ] (]) 17:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:* EU countries with freedom of panorama: Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark*, Finland*, Germany, '''Ireland''', Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and '''United Kingdom'''. (* = only for buildings)
:* EU countries without freedom of panorama: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, and Slovenia.


== Suggestion to rename many criticism/controversies articles to include both concepts in name ==
:In countries without freedom of panorama, the creator of a creative work (permanently placed in the public space, like buildings, public art, etc.) needs to authorize the release of the photo, also if you have taken the photo yourself.


Ok. First, I am posting this here, because I can't figure out a better forum (this is a cross-WikiProject issue). Second, sure, ] and ] are separate concepts. But consider for example ], ]/] and existence of categories like ]. Having looked at several of articles on criticism/controversies about companies/organizations, I am really hard pressed to find difference between them, and we already have several categories grouping those concepts together (like the mentioned Facebook one). (Rarely, we have two articles about this: consider ] vs ] - but this is pretty exceptional<small>and perhaps a case of navel gazines asking for a merge</small>).
'''Which proposal involved?'''<br />
:It concerns clause 16 of the Reda Report on copyright reform.
:Under the text approved by the EP legal affairs committee, which now goes forward to the full parliament, the parliament ...
:<blockquote>''16. Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;''</blockquote>


For those who care about category trees, few points:
'''When is the vote on this report?'''<br />
* we do not have ] (subcat of ]; only ] (subcat of ] - and yes, the plural vs singular is another, if minor, issue to fix).<small>(Mentioned Misplaced Pages list of controversies is just in ])</small> Creating them, of course, is not hard, and should be done, but that won't solve the problem of conceptually similar articles with different names (Criticism of Company A vs Controversies about Company B).
:Thursday 9 July.
** We do, however, have ]...
* according to our category structure, ] is a subcategory of ]. Whether this is correct, I am not sure, trying to make a hierarchy for such content is challenging - here, I am just noting how they are related at present in our structure
** however note that the only entity I noticed that has both controversies and criticism categories has a reverse order here: ] is a subcategory of ]


Before you tell me to take this to (probably inactive anyway) ], let me point out similar issues with, for example, ] vs ] <small>(hey, BLP-caring folks, have fun :P; and hey, US-politics-caring folks, did you know Trump is the only person to have both a criticism and a controversy category? Have more fun :P</small> Anyway, ] or ] are again hard to conceptually distinguish from ] or ]. Oh, and if you think you can tell the difference between then, then try to tackle this weirdly named stuff arbitrarily spread between those categories: ], ], ], ], ] and ] <small>(I think this is the only scandal-page in the biographies; BLP folks - you may want to rename this, together with its category... Update: I've started a RM for that one)</small>
'''Can we do something against it?'''<br />
:Yes! By making known what impact this amendment has to Misplaced Pages and what damage it can cause to Misplaced Pages. In recent years it has come to our attention that many politicians do not even know that it is forbidden to publish on their website a photo of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, without the prior permission of the architect. So in the first place creating awareness is important.


Then of course we have the rest of this can of worms - for example ] (why conflict??).
:Therefore a CentralNotice banner is prepared and a landing page. This CentralNotice banner is planned to be shown only in countries of the European Union. If you like, you can create a landing page, just like ] or ]. (Just as had been done with SOPA in 2012.)


To make it simple, we can probably retain only criticism for ideologies and concepts (]; ]).
'''What can I do?'''<br />
:* Send an e-mail to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (] and (on the page of each member is the e-mail address linked)).
:* Send a tweet to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (or re-tweet) in your language. Ask them for example if they really want Misplaced Pages to be backed-out or stripped of thousands of images. Or send a tweet to political groups in the parliament or a general tweet about the subject. Examples: , , .


And I am not feeling like tackling ] into this (subcat to controversies by type).


But I'd like to suggest that we rename all articles and categories for criticism and controversies of organizations/companies to follow ] and few others named in this fashion.
'''Where is the coordination?'''<br />
:]


For people, I suggest "Criticism and controversies related to Person X" or just rename all controversies to criticisms (because ], for example, sounds a bit weird). That said, again, conceptually, ] and ] are pretty much the same (Jesus is a controversial figure to some; Berlusconi has been criticized, and those pages cover all those aspects).
:Here, press releases, media reports, and more matters can be reported / added / suggested.


Really, almost all of those articles are pretty much conceptually identical, so even if you think you have a handle on how to draw the line between controversies of foo and criticism of foo, please note that enforcing this will be next to impossible. Rather than having multiple names and two category trees for conceptually identical articles, I think standardizing them to one is going to be best. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Feedback for the suggested banner text and landing page can be provided here: ].


:I think a first step is to go through these controversy articles to make them more of a summary style rather than listing ''every'' single incident where the topic came under controversy. ] is maybe halfway there but it still has too much dissecting to specific indicents.
:A second step would be to strip legal aspects like lawsuits to separate articles, eg like ] which generally stays more factual to actual things that happen in courts of law, rather than the commentary and criticism of from a range of sources. This might not be a possible step for several of these, but we should not try to mix criticism and ligitation. ] (]) 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


Or how about we don't have either? I don't think that we should have stand alone criticism/controversies articles or sections (for aren't we advised to integrate such stand alone into the article? Aren't they simply relics of a less rigourous era doomed to be eventualy disassembled?) ] (]) 15:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Where can I read more information?'''<br />
:Read the article in the Signpost at: ]


:+1. By their nature, these articles are either ] or so close to it that the end result is the same. Controversies and criticisms shouldn't be made standalone solely for being controversies or criticisms, whether it be as a separate article or a section within an article. They should be incorporated into the article like any other facts, and if they don't fit, then they're probably not ]. ] (]) 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! ] (]) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
::I don't know about that. For some large subjects, we can expect many subtopics/subarticles. If there's room in Misplaced Pages for a fairly niche article like ], then there's probably room in Misplaced Pages for a general article like ]. ] (]) 02:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, this wouldn't be the line of reasoning as regards more discretized controversies, e.g. ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree. A one-size-fits-all approach might not be appropriate. ] (]) 03:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:FWIW, ] does a good job at outlining its distinction as a {{xt|state of prolonged public dispute}}—ergo, controversy is properly subcategorized under criticism, requiring additional narrative and intersocial characteristics. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per ], I'd rather look for names that avoid both "Criticisms of" and "Controversies of" when possible, especially when the subject is kind of narrow. ] could be divided into a couple of less POV-ish-ly titled articles, like ] (currently a redirect). Other parts, like ] (500+ words on the construction of a single store) could either be blanked or merged to a more relevant article (e.g., ]). ] (]) 02:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree; this likely should be done with many of these articles. I'm not sure that all of them should be liquidated, though I'm not immediately hitting upon a specific counterexample. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] Some of them are certainly due (] or ], etc.), although I am sure we can find a few that wouldn't survive AfD. Criticisms of particular individuals is probably the most problematic aspect and we should really look at all articles there carefully, although for historical figures it is less of an issue (and if my post here results in clearing of some BLP-violating detritus, great). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I was talking in terms of individuals. My understanding is that criticism in the context of Criticism of capitalism or Criticism of Marxism is referring to scholarly criticism and not general negative feelings (we have separate pages after all for ] and ]). I would expect for example that an article "Criticism of Hegel" would note ] but not that his mom thought he was a jerk. ] (]) 04:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We have these FAs on "controversies":
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::I didn't see any with "criticism" in the title. We have five FAs on "scandals":
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::At a glance, I don't think that a one-size-fits-all renaming to "Criticism and controversies related to _____" would be appropriate for any of these. ] (]) 06:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think that such an approach tailored to natural persons would be appropriate. I also see a major difference between an event which has controversy, criticism, or scandal in its proper name and the use as a descriptive title. ] (]) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:I've found Misplaced Pages plagiarized in scientific journal articles. I have no tolerance for that and I contact the publishers directly. But little to nothing comes of it. In the one instance, I waited almost a year but nothing really happened. Upon pushing the matter, the publishers allowed the authors to make some trivial changes but there was no retraction. (See my banner notes at the top of ] if you are interested in this example.) Fortunately, this kind of plagiarism may be common in less prestigious journals and by less prestigious authors from universities in countries that may not care about plagiarism of Western sources. ] (]) 08:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] Wrong section? You wanted to post below? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 17:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] PS. Make sure to use ] and comment on those articles! <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 17:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== How to handle ]? ==
==== Discussion, links, blogs and more information ====
* Thanks for raising this at VP, ], and for drawing my attention to it.
: If anyone wants more information on this, beyond what Romaine has put above, there was an excellent piece by ] in ''Signpost'' this week, at ] and, borrowing heavily from that, I wrote a piece on ] over the weekend: .
: We definitely need to take action over this. Please {{tl|ping}} me if I don't check in on any proposals, decisions or !votes. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (director/trustee of ]; ])</span>
* Do we know if this will also affect ] countries? Will Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein eventually be required to implement the revised Copyright Directive? — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (])</span> 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
* The ] has more great blacked-out images. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (])</span> 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Hey all, hope everyone here is doing well. Today I woke up to discover that a podcaster I follow had plagiarised part of an article I wrote, as well as parts of some other articles (some of which I had contributed to, others not). The podcaster did not cite their sources, nor did they make it clear that they were pulling whole paragraphs from Misplaced Pages, but they ran advertisements and plugged their patreon anyway. This is not the first time an article I wrote for Misplaced Pages has been plagiarised and profited off (earlier this year I noticed a youtuber had plagiarised an entire article I had written; I've also noticed journalists ripping off bits and pieces of other articles). Nor is this limited to articles, as I often see original maps people make for Wikimedia Commons reused without credit.
* More:
** Michael Zhang, , Petapixel, 20 June 2015. Also
** Paul Wilkinson, - 21 June 2015 -- discusses press release put out by PR industry, , 18 June
: ] (]) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
* {{ping|WhatamIdoing (WMF)}} Is the WMF tuned into this at the broader topic level of freedom of panorama? I'm pretty sure you're the wrong person to ping but I figure it's a start. --] (]) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
** Yes, I'm the wrong person. I think you want ] from Legal. ] (]) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Obviously I'm not against people reusing and adapting the work we do here, as it's freely licensed under creative commons. But it bugs me that no ] is provided, especially when it is ]; attribution is literally ''the least'' that is required. I would like attribution of Misplaced Pages to become more common and normalised, but I don't know how to push for people off-wiki to be more considerate of this. In my own case, the 'content creators' in question don't provide contact details, so I have no way of privately getting in touch with them. Cases in which I have been able to contact an organisation about their unattributed use of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia content often get ignored, and the unattributed use continues. But I also have no interest in publicly naming and shaming these people, as I don't think it's constructive.
==== Key dates ====
* Wednesday 1 July: Deadline for amendments. Cross-party amendments need to be signed by 75 MEPs.
* Thursday 2 July, 9–12: Hearing specifically on Freedom of Panorama, EP working group on intellectual property
* Thursday 9 July: Vote in the EU Parliament


Does anyone here have advice for how to handle plagiarism from Misplaced Pages? Is there something we can do to push for more attribution? --] (]) 13:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Proposal: Banner alert campaign ====


:Sadly there are plenty of lazy sods who think that copying directly from Misplaced Pages is "research". This has happened with some of the articles that I have been involved with. It's rude, but hard to stop.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 14:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Something like the banner below has been suggested, geo-targeted to readers browsing from countries in Europe.
::I would start by writing to the podcaster and politely explaining to them that they are welcome to use the material but are required to provide attribution. They may simply be unaware of this and might be willing to comply if properly educated. Failing that, I assume the podcast was being streamed from some content delivery service like YouTube. You might have better luck writing to the service provider demanding that the offending material be taken down.
::Realistically, crap like this happens all the time, and there's probably not a whole bunch we can do to prevent it. ] ] 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::To support RoySmith's point, for those who may not have seen it, here is a very long youtube video about youtube and plagiarism . (Works just having it on as background audio.) ] (]) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Funnily enough, plagiarism from Misplaced Pages comes up a couple times in that video. ] also made a , which I think was a useful addition in the conversation of crediting Wikipedians. --] (]) 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I'll give that a listen. ] (]) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Aye, I figured it be an uphill battle trying to accomplish even minor changes on this front. As I can't find a way to contact the creator directly, sending an email to the hosting company may be the best I can do, but even then I doubt it'll lead to anything. Thanks for the advice, anyhow. --] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If it's a copyright violation (e.g., exact wording), rather than plagiarism (stealing the ideas but using their own words), then you could look into a ] notice. ] (]) 03:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@]: It was more-or-less word for word, with a couple tweaks here and there. I don't want the episode pulled, I really just want Misplaced Pages cited, but I can't figure out any way to get in direct contact with any of the people involved. --] (]) 10:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's possible that the way to get in touch with them is a DMCA takedown notice. Having your platform take down the whole episode tends to attract attention. You could make it easy on them by suggesting a way to fix the problem (maybe they could add something like "This episode quotes Misplaced Pages in several places" to the end of the notes on the podcast?). ] (]) 18:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm curious as to what the plagiarized article in question is. Often there is no majority authorship of an article (in terms of bytes added), which might complicate DMCA claims. ''']]''' 18:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Anyone who contributed enough content to be copyrighted can issue a DMCA notice. The glaring problem with this approach is that the DMCA only applies if the copy is published in the United States. ] (]) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::What about servers or companies based in the States (perhaps I've misremembered what little I know of copyright law)? ''']]''' 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@]: It's an article I wrote 99.9% of, minus minor copyedits by other users. I'm cautious about revealing which one as I think it would make it easy to figure out the podcast in question, and I'd still prefer to handle this privately rather than go full hbomberguy. Also, having now gone through more of the episode, it's not just that one article that got text lifted from it; text was also copied in whole or in part, without attribution, from other Misplaced Pages articles I have contributed to (but didn't author) and an article on another website that publishes under a CC BY-NC-ND license. I don't know how I would handle notifying the other parties that got plagiarised either. I haven't combed through the entire episode yet, but already a sizeable portion consists of unattributed text, either identical to the source or with minor alterations. --] (]) 19:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::One man deserves the credit, one man deserves the blame... ] ''']]''' 00:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== kenneth liu Actor ==
<div style="position: relative; overflow: hidden; margin-bottom: 0.5em !important; background-color: #000000; background-repeat: repeat-x; border: solid 1px #000000;">
<div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; height: 150px; width: 150px; background-repeat: no-repeat;">]</div>
<div id="nlwikiSOPA-content" style="position:relative; padding: 25px 160px; text-align: center; line-height: 2em;">
<div style="color: white; font-size: 2em; font-weight:bold;">]</div><br />
<span style="color: white; font-size: 1.2em;">A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Misplaced Pages in danger.</span><br />]
</div>
</div>


Why isn’t there any information on this actor kenneth liu ] (]) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
or


:Do you think this is the person with the next Wikidata file ? https://www.wikidata.org/Q130840132 <br /> <br />
<div style="border: solid 1px #333; border-radius: 0.2em; box-shadow: 0 4px 4px #999; margin-bottom: 1.5em; display: table; width: 100%; height: 150px; line-height: 1.2; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;">
:Maybe this person isn't notable enough for Misplaced Pages. See "]" and "]". <br /> <br />
:Together , we could try to determinate if he does correspond to criterias about notability. I need answers to search data about him that can show if he's notable enough for Misplaced Pages. <br /> <br />
:1.This individual is deceased or alive ? Do you know an approximative year about his birth or / and death ?
:2.Citizenship of this actor.
:3.Kenneth LIU is his real name or a pseudonym ?
:4.In which movies or / and plays he did acted ? ] (]) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Syrian flag ==
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">]]</div>
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">
<p style="font-size: 1.4em;">A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Misplaced Pages.</p>
<span class="mw-ui-button mw-ui-progressive">Learn more...</span>
</div>
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">]</div>
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">]</div>
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle;">]</div>
<div style="display: table-cell; vertical-align: top; padding: 4px;">]</div>


Just a heads-up: for obvious reasons, the default Syrian flag is now the flag of the interim revolutionary government. If you want the Assad-era flag, you will want <nowiki>{{flag|Syria|1980}}</nowiki>, not just <nowiki>{{flag|Syria}}</nowiki>. You can explictly get the revolutionary flag (with precaution against it being changed if the national flag changes again) by using <nowiki>{{flag|Syria|revolution}}</nowiki>.
</div>


For the bulk of places where the Syrian flag is used, this is correct, and it spares us an insane number of edits. However, unfortunately, a lot of articles about the recent war used/use <nowiki>{{flag|Syria}}</nowiki> for the Assad side, and now show the wrong flag. These would probably be the highest priority to change.
Alternate designs can also be proposed/discussed at ].


Similar issues might arise with (for example) participation in international competitions and conferences, granting of awards, etc., but those seem to me to be much less potentially misleading than ones related to the revolution itself. I see things that long predate 1980 that were just using <nowiki>{{flag|Syria}}</nowiki>, so it is not as if there has been great discipline around this in the past.
See also ].


(If someone needs my attention to a response here, please ping me. I do not maintain a watchlist on en-wiki.) - ] &#124; ] 23:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
What do we think ?


:@] I think you're right about this issue but I have few ideas for its resolution. <br /> <br />
===== Support banners =====
:A possibility is to give an unique name to each flags.
# '''Support''' According to one estimate, an issue needs at least 30 emails to an MEP, ''from their own local constituents'', plus some follow-up phone calls, to get onto a typical MEP's radar. To get MEPs to have signed amendments by 2 July -- only ten days away now -- we need to start getting the message out, and fast. ] (]) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:For example we erase <nowiki>{{flag|Syria}}</nowiki> that gave the next result : {{flag|Syria}}. <br /> <br />
# '''Strong support'''. What ] said. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (])</span> 10:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:We keep <nowiki>{{flag|Syria|1980}}</nowiki> that gave the next result {{flag|Syria|1980}}
#'''Support''' This is a matter of general concern to everyone here, and to everyone who may not edit, but uses the encycopedia. Politics directly related to our primary mission is part of our primary mission. ''']''' (]) 23:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:The same for <nowiki>{{flag|Syria|revolution}}</nowiki> that gave the next result {{flag|Syria|revolution}}. <br /> <br />
#'''Support''' smaller banners. This is an effort to enclose the commons of shared knowledge - there aren't many such efforts, but they all directly hamper the work of Misplaced Pages and other free knowledge projects. This is a much more direct attack on our work than SOPA was (even though SOPA might have had more far-reaching impact): it is trying to restrict a set of knowledge that is currently free, and is currently widely used and relied upon on the wikiprojects.
:We can do the same for others flags. For example instead of <nowiki>{{flag|United States}}</nowiki> that gave the next result {{flag|United States}}. <br /> <br />
#: It might be useful to run banners on a subset of pages that might be affected (if that is possible), saying that images on that page might be removed as a result. That would clarify why this matters to readers. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:We keep <nowiki>{{flag|United States|1960}}</nowiki> {{flag|United States|1960}} that gave the flag of nowadays with 50 stars.
#'''Support''' This is a direct threat to Misplaced Pages's mission. <font color="#1EC112">]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">]</font></sup> 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:To get the previous flag <nowiki>{{flag|United States|1959}}</nowiki> = {{flag|United States|1959}}.
#'''Support''' Clearly an issue that impacts Misplaced Pages in a real and meaningful way and en.wikipedia in particular. I'm opposed to us having banners even for great causes ''unless they impact how Misplaced Pages works in a significant way''. This crosses that line quite easily. ] (]) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:<br /> <br />
# '''Support''' This EU proposal would break lots of articles. If possible, only display the banners for people accessing the projects from the European Union. The Wikimedia Foundation is already able to identify the country of the person visiting the project as fundraising banners suggest that you donate money in local currency. --] (]) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:I discover a thing. If you write <nowiki>{{flag|Country of your choice|Year}}</nowiki> you get the flag of this country in force during the year selectionned for some countries.
# '''Support''' This affects our core mission. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:It doesn't functionning for all countries. ] (]) 00:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
# '''Support''' We need to stand up for our content. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I certainly don't oppose someone taking on a major, multi-person-month approach to the entire {{tl|flags}} template, but I would not want to see us delay the solution to this immediate issue and have it wait for a massive, broad project. - ] &#124; ] 00:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:I think a project like this would need 10 people or more. What do you think about the number ? ] (]) 00:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
===== Support banners that do not advocate a particular action =====
# I would '''support''' a banner which informed the reader rather than advocated a particular action, in other words the banner should not say "must remain" but should inform the reader of the consequences of the proposed EU legislation. The reader can decide whether they want the images to remain. --] (]) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:{{Rto|Boson}} How about the white banner I added above? It's another option being discussed on Commons. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


== Indigenous territory ==
===== Oppose banners =====


Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? ] (]) 05:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' While this is a possible issue, I don't think that using Misplaced Pages is the right step. What we need to remember is that in many countries, this is already the case. Personally, I feel that using Misplaced Pages to oppose a political movement is stepping outside the neutrality argument. SOPA has not set a precedent, and in some ways I'm disappointed that people keep trying to use it as such. Overall, I feel that while this is a good cause, plastering an appeal all over the top of every page is an overreaction, partly because 99% of readers will have no interest or idea what freedom of panorama is about, and are unlikely to act on it. ] (]) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#: {{Reply to|Mdann52}} While I'd agree on most issues, this is one that will directly affect Misplaced Pages — we would have to remove images from articles about buildings and other cultural works from anywhere in the EU, which includes two English-speaking countries and a population larger than the USA. I agree SOPA isn't necessarily a precedent for using Misplaced Pages ''per se'', but it certainly is a precedent for "Misplaced Pages itself might protest political issues that affect Misplaced Pages". Does that change your position any or do we disagree about ever using Misplaced Pages to protest any issue, even if it affects Misplaced Pages itself? (Obviously, your position is entirely legitimate, either way... :o) — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (])</span> 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#:: {{ping|OwenBlacker}} I do agree this is an issue that we will have to face - however, I disagree with the removing image points, at least on this Wiki - we can use images under fair use provisions, which can well be expanded if needed. Also, I'm unsure how this will relate to existing buildings - will copyright be restored (a questionable move), or will it, as I suspect, remain such if it was taken before the new legislation, and alter later. Additionally, I would argue that using a banner is likely to be highly unreliable in terms of results - for example, how many people just dismiss the fundraising banner without even reading it, or outright ignore it? ] (]) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#:::{{ping|Mdann52}} Per current views on ], if these images went non-free we would typically restrict to only ''one'' image allowed, restricted to an article which specifically had the building or artwork as main topic.
#:::Articles like ] would be decimated, as would Commons.
#:::The situation on non English-language wikis would be worse, as they typically would not be able to show ''any'' images. (U.S. fair use isn't held to apply, as they are not primarily directed at the U.S.)
#:::Banners can actually be quite effective in gaining attention, particularly on say 1-display-every-5th-page rotation, and if they aren't trying to separate people from their money. I believe they also usually come with a "Seen this, don't show me again" kill switch. ] (]) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#::::That example would probably still be ok - they are different buildings, so they seem to fall under my understanding of ]. I've asked people about this, and they all feel that they are not only uninterested in this, but they just dismiss any such banners without reading them. Also, this does not format well in mobile view, maybe take a look at that? ] (]) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::::: {{Reply to|Mdann52}} Unfortunately, ] disagrees here:
#::::: {{talkquote|In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.}}
#::::: Personally, I'd prefer that we were slightly more liberal with our use of non-Free content, but the community more widely disagrees (and being a Free encyclopædia is one of the central tenets of Misplaced Pages, after all).
#::::: That said, even if you don't care about effects outside enwiki (so on Commons, or Wikipedias in other European languages, let alone in the wider world, such as your tourist shots on ], this proposal would mean that articles like ] (and 50 other articles in ]), ] or even ], ], ] and ] would suffer greatly — and that lists like ] or ] could never be populated to become less patchy. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 14:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Although proposed for a cause I may sympathise with, I wouldn't feel comfortable using an encyclopedia to advocate external activism. European legislation may reduce the number of freely available images from that jurisdiction but it doesn't prevent a descriptive article from coming into fruition. It also doesn't prevent those images from ever appearing; it merely requires a non-free use provision or that permission is sought before it can be uploaded here under a free license - as with most copyrighted works. Hence why I believe this is mainly a Commons issue. On an aesthetic level, I find (advertisement) banners both extremely irritating and distracting while editing. ] (]) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#: {{Reply to|Fuebaey}} As ] mentioned above, list articles, such as ], would be completely decimated. And ] does not allow more than one non-Free image of a subject, and even then only on the specific article page. Non-English-language Wikipedias would also be substantially more affected. I would dispute completely that it does not affect Misplaced Pages. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#::Sorry, but this just reaffirms my original comment on political advocacy. Non-free content permits the use of copyrighted images, provided ] is given. It does not state that an article is limited to one NFC image nor that those images are restricted to certain articles; the caveats are "minimal usage" and to "article namespace". So, in itself, the message is misleading - it is not about a substantial loss of images, it is the perennial question of copyright and the debate surrounding that. In relation to the method of exposure, ] is something to consider especially given that the proposition requires not only support, but reader action. Personally, I'm more responsive to short descriptive watchpage messages rather than big intrusive graphics. ] (]) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::: {{Reply to|Fuebaey}} This is not just about "copyright and the debate surrounding" it; this is about removing a whole category of possible images from becoming Free. Importantly, as ] points out below, ] states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be {{tq|in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed}}. That would include the United Kingdom and Ireland, which will both be constrained by any revised Copyright Directive removing our existing FoP exeptions. Even without any change to ] policies, though, your analysis is contradicted by ], as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:
#::: {{talkquote|In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.}}
#::: Personally, I'd prefer that we were slightly more liberal with our use of non-Free content, but the community more widely disagrees (and being a Free encyclopædia is one of the central tenets of Misplaced Pages, after all).
#::: That said, even if you're not concerned by effects outside enwiki (so on Commons, or Wikipedias in other European languages, let alone in the wider world, such as your tourist shots on ]), this proposal would mean that articles like ] (and 50 other articles in ]), ] or even ], ], ] and ] would suffer greatly — and that lists like ] or ] could never be populated to become less patchy.
#::: Certainly it's worth us worrying about banner blindness, but watchlist notices won't catch everyone either — this is not an issue that solely affects ''editors'', but also ''readers''; either way, not even all editors will see watchlist notices. We should definitely consider as many options as possible, though. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. No. No more huge, ugly banner ads on Misplaced Pages for real-world political campaigns. This is an encyclopedia, not a petition site. We've got '']'' for news and announcements. We should redirect all these petitions to them. ] (]) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#: {{Reply to|NinjaRobotPirate}} That limits the audience to a tiny minority of expert editors, rather than bringing an issue that will affect almost all Misplaced Pages users to the attention to almost all Misplaced Pages users. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#:: If this limits the audience to people who care about such topics, I don't think that's such a bad thing. ] (]) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::: {{Reply to|NinjaRobotPirate}} I would suggest that ''Signpost'' readers and "people who care about such topics" are probably quite different, if overlapping, sets. I agree with your principle of limiting something like this to the smallest group that will include the overwhelming majority of interested users, but I don't think posting this to ''Signpost'' (which has already been done, incidentally) would achieve that. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::: {{Reply to|NinjaRobotPirate}} What gives you the right to decide who gets to learn about this? You are priviliged: you saw this discussion. 99.9|% of editors did not, because they don't read Signpost. Ditto for 100% of our readers. They have the right to learn about a law that can gut images on this project, too. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy on any topic. ] (]) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#: {{Reply to|Nyttend}} As I said earlier, while I'd agree on most issues, this is one that will ''directly'' affect Misplaced Pages — we would have to remove images from articles about buildings and other cultural works from anywhere in the EU, which includes two English-speaking countries and a population larger than the USA. I agree SOPA isn't necessarily a precedent for using Misplaced Pages ''per se'', but it certainly is a precedent for "Misplaced Pages itself might protest political issues that affect Misplaced Pages". Does that change your position any or do we disagree about ever using Misplaced Pages to protest any issue, even if it affects Misplaced Pages itself? (Obviously, your position is entirely legitimate, either way... :o) — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#::Who says that we'll have to remove images from articles? We already ignore non-US local law on ]. Moreover, does this proposed legislation have some sort of ex post facto provision? These images are hosted legally on US-based servers, which aren't answerable to European copyright legislation, and since they've already been uploaded legally, is there really a threat that European photographers will be punishable in the future for copyright infringement when the photo-taking and photo-uploading was legal? And finally, to answer your question, it doesn't. This legislation wouldn't affect me, since I'm in the USA, but if there were such a proposal in the US Congress, I would still oppose the idea of a banner (just as I did with the SOPA thing), because it's political advocacy. ] (]) 23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#::: The original uploader wouldn't be at risk. Any reuser would be at risk. As a result, current Commons process would likely remove those images. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 23:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#::::While you were writing this, I was adding something to my comment: between "legal?" and "And", put ''Furthermore, even if there be some requirement that the images be removed from Commons, they can come here; they can be tagged like ], rather than requiring fair-use justifications; I understand that this wouldn't be relevant to other language projects, but the ultimate effect on en:wp wouldn't be catastrophic.'' Meanwhile, if the problem is the risks to potential reusers, how would this be different from PD-Art? We already have ] with those images. ] (]) 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::::: The situation is effectively the same as with ], rather than PD-Art. I disagree with your position, but I can see that it is both considered and sincerely-held. Thank you for contributing it. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:::::: ]: See ]: an EDP, such as ], must be 'in accordance with United States law '''and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed'''&apos;. The United Kingdom seems to be a country where English Misplaced Pages predominantly is accessed, for example. --] (]) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:{{Reply to|Nyttend}} This affects us, too. Images may be deleted from lists, collages, templates, etc. We could not use them on the front page. Our Featured Pictures would lose a number of images. Etc. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' on articles: Although a perfectly valid cause, political advocacy should be limited to publications such as the Wikimedia blog or the Signpost. Except for political actions that could ''seriously'' threaten Misplaced Pages (e.g. SOPA), such advocacy should not be shown on Misplaced Pages, where ] should be achieved. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#: {{Reply to|Esquivalience}} I would suggest that removing most images of modern European buildings and art from the Misplaced Pages would qualify as a serious threat. ] would of course apply to ''encyclopædic content'' about copyright reform, but is irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not the community considers an issue sufficiently existential to merit drawing it to the attention of readers. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
#:: I would suggest limiting it to the main page only, and in a more neutral way (listing possible consequences and the sides instead of trying to outright persuade the reader). Yes, it would be a threat to Misplaced Pages imagery, but not of a serious-enough nature to overlay on all articles. Overlaying this on articles goes too far, and Misplaced Pages is ] - there may be readers that actually support limiting freedom of panaroma rights from commercial use: our goal is not to convince readers to switch to Wikimedia-held viewpoints unless it threatens Misplaced Pages's existence). Also, the banner should '''really''' be smaller. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 03:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#::: {{Reply to|Esquivalience}} I doubt all that many people ever see the Main Page; I don't think that would achieve anything like the same aim (to alert interested readers and editors); similarly ] is about article ''content'' (and usernames etc) and makes no mention of the site chrome around those articles; clearly advocating about an issue that the community feels represents an existential threat is very different to putting a "Vote Hillary" banner on a relevant article regarding US politics. I'd suggest an equivalent might be the restriction on political activities by charities here in the UK:
#::: {{talkquote|Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake.<br/>Legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity.|source=, <span style="font-style: normal;">]</span>}}
#::: I would suggest that limiting freedom of panorama rights across most of Europe would be a severe threat to our ability to our claim to be an excellent and comprehensive encyclopædia (and would clearly limit the equivalent claim for the Commons). I'm sure there must be readers who support limiting the licensing of Misplaced Pages to prohibit commercial use, but ] explicitly states that Misplaced Pages's position is contrary to that; similarly WP:NFC would restrict our ability to illustrate articles about modern buildings and works of public art — 5 of the 6 main images on ] (and 10 of the 35 gallery thumbnails) would be affected, for example, introducing a ] against modern European art, artists, architects and architecture and such articles. (I'm sympathetic to your argument on sizing ☺) — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:{{Reply to|Esquivalience}} This affects us, too. Images may be deleted from lists, collages, templates, etc. We could not use them on the front page. Our Featured Pictures would lose a number of images. Etc. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' – Misplaced Pages has no place for liberal advocacy, and no right to meddle in the realm of law. We must obey what laws are made, whether we like them or not. We must not interfere in matters outside our purview. The neutrality of the encylopaedia is at stake. ] — ] 05:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:{{rto|RGloucester}} If the lawmakers would want to pass a law abolishing free licences, you would just say "oh well, that's the law" and thank them for their hard work? This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted. I don't see what is there to be neutral about; this law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. I sympathize very much with the cause, but I can't support advocacy. ] (]) 05:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
#:{{rto|Everyking}} What advocacy? We are simply pointing out that many of our images may be deleted if a law passes. If you think a banner should have a more neutral language, you can propose an alternative. This law means that hundreds if not thousands of hours I put into going to places and taking pictures of monuments and such will be wasted.This law is destroying value me and others created. By accepting it and refusing to help you are actively taking part in this vandalism, saying that our photos are worthless of saving. Saying that this law is problematic is not advocacy, it is simple vandalism prevention, just in the legal realm. PS. Anyway, see the white banner I posted above, I think it is much more neutral - purely informative. Would this address your concerns? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Fuebaey. Leave your politics at home. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
:# {{rto|Chris troutman}} This is not politics. It is an information awareness initiative. And why are you saying that my images are worthless? I spend thousands of hours making them, now they are in danger of being deleted. Why is my contribution to this project not worth your support? Or, in fact, your opposition here reads to me like you want my (and those of countless others) images to be deleted. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


:I am not sure what specifically is being asked, but I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to ask it at the village pump? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
===== Discussion on banners =====
::This might be a question for the ]. ] (]) 07:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*This seems to be a rather complex, multilayered issue as opposed to a straightforward "support"-"oppose" one. There are several key issues: 1) should Misplaced Pages take part in political advocacy, 2) if so, what kinds of political issues should Misplaced Pages take part in, and 3) is the EU proposal limiting freedom of panorama a political issue worth taking part in? I'd feel more comfortable (and I feel this proposal would have more success in general) if we held a separate RfC for the first two questions before going straight into the third question. We have the ] from several years back, but there's debate over whether that set a precedent, and if it did, to what extent. ] (]) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:::I suggested ] on their talkpage. ] (]) 07:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
** Misplaced Pages can only exist and provide knowledge if the laws of the countries around the world make this possible. I personally think that Misplaced Pages cannot and should not be used as political instrument, unless Misplaced Pages itself is at danger and at risk to have thousands of images (or articles) been removed purely because of a law that is hurting our ] to share the sum of all knowledge. WMF has shown with the ] that if Misplaced Pages is really at danger, public action is justified to stay able to provide the world the knowledge in words, images, sound and video. We keep Misplaced Pages neutral, but we do also make our voice heard if Misplaced Pages is threatened.
** Simple question: if someone points a gun at you with the intention to hurt you, what do you do? A. Staying neutral and silently just waiting to get hurt. B. Staying neutral and making yourself heard that you are in danger. ] (]) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
* Why *must* these images remain on Misplaced Pages? I don't think that is the appropriate term to use; after all, if nothing but unfree images are available for mnay subjects, even English Misplaced Pages won't allow them, and we have lots of unfree images now. We would just have articles without those images, or we'd claim fair use (like we do for album covers and movie posters). I think the message is wrong, to start with. ] (]) 04:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
** {{Reply to|Risker}} As ] points out below, ] states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be {{tq|in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed}}. That would include the United Kingdom and Ireland, which will both be constrained by any revised Copyright Directive removing our existing FoP exeptions. Even without any change to ] policies, ] would, prohibit many of the uses we have at the moment., as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:
*: {{talkquote|In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.}}
*: We cannot claim fair use for all the uses we currently have — particularly articles like ] (and 50 other articles in ]), ] or even ], ], ] and ] would suffer greatly — and that lists like ] or ] could never be populated to become less patchy.
*: — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 23:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' The page should state "more than a decade" and not "over a decade". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
** {{Reply to|Lugnuts}} {{Done-t}} — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(])</small></span> 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks! ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
* I would recommend people read ] before they ping everyone who voted to oppose. ] (]) 00:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:04, 24 December 2024

Central discussion page of Misplaced Pages for general topics not covered by the specific topic pages
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
Centralized discussion For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

How do you choose which articles to work on ?

Greetings! My question is the next. How do you choose the articles you want to work on ?

In my case, it's simple. I read articles on topics that interest me and I read the related articles (For example, internal links).

If I don't have time to work on it. I write a note on my user page to work on it later. Anatole-berthe (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that really depends on who you ask. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Everybody's different. Some people are on a mission to document every professional cricket player, every TV station, every species of reptile, every politician in their home country, etc, etc. I like to explore the history of where I live and as often as not, my interest in a topic is sparked by going past some building or park and wondering if there's more there than meets the eye. And, just like Anatole-berthe, my user space is littered with stubs of future articles that never went anywhere. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Aye, I figure that everyone will have different motives. I've ceased article writing because this list of articles I have worked on is also a list of articles I need to maintain, and it's gotten too long. Every year I do maintain that list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to everybody for yours answers ! Anatole-berthe (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm a WikiSloth: I work on whatever catches my eye, most often merely to untangle awkward wording; though I pay more attention to areas where I think I know something, like heraldry and polytopes. —Tamfang (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
What I like to do is to go to the list of all unreferenced pages (Category:Articles lacking sources), and I select a random page and add a reference to it. It's not that important but it passes the time. If you want anymore help--Usertalk:Timothy Venia Timothy Venia (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS article title discrepancy

I recently learned that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Visual arts includes the article title guidance "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards". I encountered this when Peeling Onions was moved to Peeling Onions (Lilly Martin Spencer) for this reason by User:SilverLocust. This seems to be contrary to the general rule of not using disambiguation unless necessary, and is also not in sync with other comparable guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (music) which follow the general rule. Is there a reason for this local consensus overriding the global one that I am missing? Fram (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I moved it from Peeling Onions(Lilly Martin Spencer) to Peeling Onions (Lilly Martin Spencer) after another user had objected to renaming it just Peeling Onions. But as noted at WP:MISPLACED#Other exceptions, there are some naming conventions that call for unnecessary disambiguation. The other thing people usually point to when disagreeing with WP:MISPLACED is WP:ASTONISH. Also, MOS:ART isn't a local consensus. SilverLocust 💬 08:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, "local consensus" was not the right choice of words, I meant a more specific guideline overruling the general one and not being in sync with most other ones. Fram (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

But anyway, the question is, is there a good reason why the band, movie, album, book, .... "Peeling Onions" would all be at the title "Peeling Onions", but for the painting we need to add the name of the artist? Fram (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If there were two or more notable paintings called “Pealing Onions”, disambiguating by artist would be helpful.
Otherwise, we don’t need to be so specific. We can disambiguate as “Pealing Onions (painting)” to distinguish it from the book, album, etc of the same title. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Peeling Onions (Lilly Martin Spencer)#Requested move 20 December 2024. GTrang (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename many criticism/controversies articles to include both concepts in name

Ok. First, I am posting this here, because I can't figure out a better forum (this is a cross-WikiProject issue). Second, sure, criticism and controversies are separate concepts. But consider for example Criticism of Facebook, CNN controversies/Controversies of Nestlé and existence of categories like Category:Facebook criticisms and controversies. Having looked at several of articles on criticism/controversies about companies/organizations, I am really hard pressed to find difference between them, and we already have several categories grouping those concepts together (like the mentioned Facebook one). (Rarely, we have two articles about this: consider Criticism of Misplaced Pages vs List of Misplaced Pages controversies - but this is pretty exceptionaland perhaps a case of navel gazines asking for a merge).

For those who care about category trees, few points:

Before you tell me to take this to (probably inactive anyway) WT:COMPANIES, let me point out similar issues with, for example, Category:Controversies by person vs Category:Criticism of individuals (hey, BLP-caring folks, have fun :P; and hey, US-politics-caring folks, did you know Trump is the only person to have both a criticism and a controversy category? Have more fun :P Anyway, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Criticism of Jesus are again hard to conceptually distinguish from Controversies related to Sheikh Hasina or Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi. Oh, and if you think you can tell the difference between then, then try to tackle this weirdly named stuff arbitrarily spread between those categories: Commentary about Julian Assange, Donald Trump's comments on John McCain, Historical assessment of Klemens von Metternich, Reception and legacy of Muhammad Khatami, Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure and Jack Abramoff scandals (I think this is the only scandal-page in the biographies; BLP folks - you may want to rename this, together with its category... Update: I've started a RM for that one)

Then of course we have the rest of this can of worms - for example Scouting controversy and conflict (why conflict??).

To make it simple, we can probably retain only criticism for ideologies and concepts (Category:Criticisms by ideology; Category:Criticism of science).

And I am not feeling like tackling Category:Scandals by type into this (subcat to controversies by type).

But I'd like to suggest that we rename all articles and categories for criticism and controversies of organizations/companies to follow Category:Facebook criticisms and controversies and few others named in this fashion.

For people, I suggest "Criticism and controversies related to Person X" or just rename all controversies to criticisms (because Criticism and controversies related to Jesus, for example, sounds a bit weird). That said, again, conceptually, criticism of Jesus and Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi are pretty much the same (Jesus is a controversial figure to some; Berlusconi has been criticized, and those pages cover all those aspects).

Really, almost all of those articles are pretty much conceptually identical, so even if you think you have a handle on how to draw the line between controversies of foo and criticism of foo, please note that enforcing this will be next to impossible. Rather than having multiple names and two category trees for conceptually identical articles, I think standardizing them to one is going to be best. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a first step is to go through these controversy articles to make them more of a summary style rather than listing every single incident where the topic came under controversy. Criticism of Christianity is maybe halfway there but it still has too much dissecting to specific indicents.
A second step would be to strip legal aspects like lawsuits to separate articles, eg like Litigation involving Apple Inc. which generally stays more factual to actual things that happen in courts of law, rather than the commentary and criticism of from a range of sources. This might not be a possible step for several of these, but we should not try to mix criticism and ligitation. Masem (t) 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Or how about we don't have either? I don't think that we should have stand alone criticism/controversies articles or sections (for aren't we advised to integrate such stand alone into the article? Aren't they simply relics of a less rigourous era doomed to be eventualy disassembled?) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. By their nature, these articles are either POV forks or so close to it that the end result is the same. Controversies and criticisms shouldn't be made standalone solely for being controversies or criticisms, whether it be as a separate article or a section within an article. They should be incorporated into the article like any other facts, and if they don't fit, then they're probably not due. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about that. For some large subjects, we can expect many subtopics/subarticles. If there's room in Misplaced Pages for a fairly niche article like History of religion in the Netherlands, then there's probably room in Misplaced Pages for a general article like Criticism of religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, this wouldn't be the line of reasoning as regards more discretized controversies, e.g. Chinese Rites controversy. Remsense ‥ 论 02:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. A one-size-fits-all approach might not be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, Controversy does a good job at outlining its distinction as a state of prolonged public dispute—ergo, controversy is properly subcategorized under criticism, requiring additional narrative and intersocial characteristics. Remsense ‥ 论 02:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Per Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Naming, I'd rather look for names that avoid both "Criticisms of" and "Controversies of" when possible, especially when the subject is kind of narrow. Criticism of Walmart could be divided into a couple of less POV-ish-ly titled articles, like Labor relations at Walmart (currently a redirect). Other parts, like Criticism of Walmart#Midtown Walmart (500+ words on the construction of a single store) could either be blanked or merged to a more relevant article (e.g., Midtown Miami). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree; this likely should be done with many of these articles. I'm not sure that all of them should be liquidated, though I'm not immediately hitting upon a specific counterexample. Remsense ‥ 论 02:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Some of them are certainly due (Criticism of capitalism or Criticism of Marxism, etc.), although I am sure we can find a few that wouldn't survive AfD. Criticisms of particular individuals is probably the most problematic aspect and we should really look at all articles there carefully, although for historical figures it is less of an issue (and if my post here results in clearing of some BLP-violating detritus, great). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking in terms of individuals. My understanding is that criticism in the context of Criticism of capitalism or Criticism of Marxism is referring to scholarly criticism and not general negative feelings (we have separate pages after all for Anti-capitalism and Anti-communism). I would expect for example that an article "Criticism of Hegel" would note Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right but not that his mom thought he was a jerk. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
We have these FAs on "controversies":
I didn't see any with "criticism" in the title. We have five FAs on "scandals":
At a glance, I don't think that a one-size-fits-all renaming to "Criticism and controversies related to _____" would be appropriate for any of these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that such an approach tailored to natural persons would be appropriate. I also see a major difference between an event which has controversy, criticism, or scandal in its proper name and the use as a descriptive title. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I've found Misplaced Pages plagiarized in scientific journal articles. I have no tolerance for that and I contact the publishers directly. But little to nothing comes of it. In the one instance, I waited almost a year but nothing really happened. Upon pushing the matter, the publishers allowed the authors to make some trivial changes but there was no retraction. (See my banner notes at the top of Talk:Semi-empirical mass formula if you are interested in this example.) Fortunately, this kind of plagiarism may be common in less prestigious journals and by less prestigious authors from universities in countries that may not care about plagiarism of Western sources. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn Wrong section? You wanted to post below? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn PS. Make sure to use PubPeer and comment on those articles! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

How to handle plagiarism from Misplaced Pages?

Hey all, hope everyone here is doing well. Today I woke up to discover that a podcaster I follow had plagiarised part of an article I wrote, as well as parts of some other articles (some of which I had contributed to, others not). The podcaster did not cite their sources, nor did they make it clear that they were pulling whole paragraphs from Misplaced Pages, but they ran advertisements and plugged their patreon anyway. This is not the first time an article I wrote for Misplaced Pages has been plagiarised and profited off (earlier this year I noticed a youtuber had plagiarised an entire article I had written; I've also noticed journalists ripping off bits and pieces of other articles). Nor is this limited to articles, as I often see original maps people make for Wikimedia Commons reused without credit.

Obviously I'm not against people reusing and adapting the work we do here, as it's freely licensed under creative commons. But it bugs me that no attribution is provided, especially when it is required by the license; attribution is literally the least that is required. I would like attribution of Misplaced Pages to become more common and normalised, but I don't know how to push for people off-wiki to be more considerate of this. In my own case, the 'content creators' in question don't provide contact details, so I have no way of privately getting in touch with them. Cases in which I have been able to contact an organisation about their unattributed use of Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia content often get ignored, and the unattributed use continues. But I also have no interest in publicly naming and shaming these people, as I don't think it's constructive.

Does anyone here have advice for how to handle plagiarism from Misplaced Pages? Is there something we can do to push for more attribution? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sadly there are plenty of lazy sods who think that copying directly from Misplaced Pages is "research". This has happened with some of the articles that I have been involved with. It's rude, but hard to stop.--♦IanMacM♦ 14:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would start by writing to the podcaster and politely explaining to them that they are welcome to use the material but are required to provide attribution. They may simply be unaware of this and might be willing to comply if properly educated. Failing that, I assume the podcast was being streamed from some content delivery service like YouTube. You might have better luck writing to the service provider demanding that the offending material be taken down.
Realistically, crap like this happens all the time, and there's probably not a whole bunch we can do to prevent it. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
To support RoySmith's point, for those who may not have seen it, here is a very long youtube video about youtube and plagiarism . (Works just having it on as background audio.) CMD (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Funnily enough, plagiarism from Misplaced Pages comes up a couple times in that video. MJL also made a very good response video, which I think was a useful addition in the conversation of crediting Wikipedians. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give that a listen. CMD (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Aye, I figured it be an uphill battle trying to accomplish even minor changes on this front. As I can't find a way to contact the creator directly, sending an email to the hosting company may be the best I can do, but even then I doubt it'll lead to anything. Thanks for the advice, anyhow. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's a copyright violation (e.g., exact wording), rather than plagiarism (stealing the ideas but using their own words), then you could look into a DMCA takedown notice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: It was more-or-less word for word, with a couple tweaks here and there. I don't want the episode pulled, I really just want Misplaced Pages cited, but I can't figure out any way to get in direct contact with any of the people involved. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's possible that the way to get in touch with them is a DMCA takedown notice. Having your platform take down the whole episode tends to attract attention. You could make it easy on them by suggesting a way to fix the problem (maybe they could add something like "This episode quotes Misplaced Pages in several places" to the end of the notes on the podcast?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what the plagiarized article in question is. Often there is no majority authorship of an article (in terms of bytes added), which might complicate DMCA claims. JayCubby 18:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who contributed enough content to be copyrighted can issue a DMCA notice. The glaring problem with this approach is that the DMCA only applies if the copy is published in the United States. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
What about servers or companies based in the States (perhaps I've misremembered what little I know of copyright law)? JayCubby 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@JayCubby: It's an article I wrote 99.9% of, minus minor copyedits by other users. I'm cautious about revealing which one as I think it would make it easy to figure out the podcast in question, and I'd still prefer to handle this privately rather than go full hbomberguy. Also, having now gone through more of the episode, it's not just that one article that got text lifted from it; text was also copied in whole or in part, without attribution, from other Misplaced Pages articles I have contributed to (but didn't author) and an article on another website that publishes under a CC BY-NC-ND license. I don't know how I would handle notifying the other parties that got plagiarised either. I haven't combed through the entire episode yet, but already a sizeable portion consists of unattributed text, either identical to the source or with minor alterations. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
One man deserves the credit, one man deserves the blame... JayCubby 00:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

kenneth liu Actor

Why isn’t there any information on this actor kenneth liu 2600:480A:5C77:2700:359F:7092:84EB:47F5 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you think this is the person with the next Wikidata file ? https://www.wikidata.org/Q130840132

Maybe this person isn't notable enough for Misplaced Pages. See "Misplaced Pages:Notability" and "Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)".

Together , we could try to determinate if he does correspond to criterias about notability. I need answers to search data about him that can show if he's notable enough for Misplaced Pages.

1.This individual is deceased or alive ? Do you know an approximative year about his birth or / and death ?
2.Citizenship of this actor.
3.Kenneth LIU is his real name or a pseudonym ?
4.In which movies or / and plays he did acted ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian flag

Just a heads-up: for obvious reasons, the default Syrian flag is now the flag of the interim revolutionary government. If you want the Assad-era flag, you will want {{flag|Syria|1980}}, not just {{flag|Syria}}. You can explictly get the revolutionary flag (with precaution against it being changed if the national flag changes again) by using {{flag|Syria|revolution}}.

For the bulk of places where the Syrian flag is used, this is correct, and it spares us an insane number of edits. However, unfortunately, a lot of articles about the recent war used/use {{flag|Syria}} for the Assad side, and now show the wrong flag. These would probably be the highest priority to change.

Similar issues might arise with (for example) participation in international competitions and conferences, granting of awards, etc., but those seem to me to be much less potentially misleading than ones related to the revolution itself. I see things that long predate 1980 that were just using {{flag|Syria}}, so it is not as if there has been great discipline around this in the past.

(If someone needs my attention to a response here, please ping me. I do not maintain a watchlist on en-wiki.) - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel I think you're right about this issue but I have few ideas for its resolution.

A possibility is to give an unique name to each flags.
For example we erase {{flag|Syria}} that gave the next result :  Syria.

We keep {{flag|Syria|1980}} that gave the next result  Syria
The same for {{flag|Syria|revolution}} that gave the next result  Syria.

We can do the same for others flags. For example instead of {{flag|United States}} that gave the next result  United States.

We keep {{flag|United States|1960}}  United States that gave the flag of nowadays with 50 stars.
To get the previous flag {{flag|United States|1959}} =  United States.


I discover a thing. If you write {{flag|Country of your choice|Year}} you get the flag of this country in force during the year selectionned for some countries.
It doesn't functionning for all countries. Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't oppose someone taking on a major, multi-person-month approach to the entire {{flags}} template, but I would not want to see us delay the solution to this immediate issue and have it wait for a massive, broad project. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a project like this would need 10 people or more. What do you think about the number ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous territory

Are there Indigenous territory in Ecuador, Suriname? What about Honduras, Guatemala, and Salvador? Kaiyr (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what specifically is being asked, but I'm fairly sure you didn't mean to ask it at the village pump? Remsense ‥ 论 05:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
This might be a question for the Misplaced Pages:Reference desk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggested Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities on their talkpage. CMD (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: