Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:05, 24 June 2015

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPM
• WP:VPMISC

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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 effect of enabling VisualEditor for new users. 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 timeline, 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,

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 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?—Kww(talk) 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: Hey, sorry for not giving links to where we've previously announced and discussed this – see here, here, here and here, 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. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 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.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Kww, 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.

Jdforrester (WMF), 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). Alsee (talk) 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? TheMagikCow (talk) 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 File:Switching edit modes on Mobile Web 2014-11-04.png. 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.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Please fix the problem with search function. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which problem would that be? Not everyone is experiencing problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Search engine problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See phab:T102463 - unfortunately still ongoing work. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 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. Ellywa (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ellywa,

Amir's team has done some pretty awesome work with mw:CX, 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 WP:Countering systemic bias, by making it easy to get (for example) more well-written, well-sourced articles about famous people from non-English speaking countries here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ellywa, 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? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amir E. Aharoni and WhatamIdoing, 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. Ellywa (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A/B Testing for VisualEditor complete

Hi folks. About a month ago, I announced 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 m:Research:VisualEditor's effect on newly registered editors/May 2015 study. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 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? Jason Quinn (talk) 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 <ref></ref>, 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 WYSIWYG. (ROFL. This makes me think of my own aversion against MS Word when I came from Wordperfect 5.1 with all its visible codes, I knew by heart). Thanks, developers. Ellywa (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Halfak:, @JamesF:: Most promising. Thank you for the update, and the fast turnaround! – SJ + 23:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Available Now (June 2015)

Hello Wikimedians!

Today The Misplaced Pages Library announces signups for more free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

• Taylor & Francis — academic publisher of journals. The pilot includes two subject collections: Arts & Humanities and Biological, Environment & Earth Sciences. (30 accounts)
• World Bank eLibrary — digital platform containing all books, working papers, and journal articles published by the World Bank from the 1990s to the present. (100 accounts)
• AAAS — general interest science publisher, who publishes the journal Science among other sources (50 accounts)

New French-Language Branch!

• Érudit (en Francais) — 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 (en Francais) — 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).
• L'Harmattan — 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 our partners page, including an expansion of accounts for Royal Society journals and remaining accounts on Project MUSE, JSTOR, DeGruyter, Highbeam Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archive. If you have suggestions for journals or databases we should seek access to make a request! Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
--The Misplaced Pages Library Team 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 our new coordinator signup.

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Misplaced Pages Library Global Delivery List

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 Madison Marquette 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? —Largo Plazo (talk) 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. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#Navbox for a real estate company's properties. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Here is the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 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 profile of Peacemaker67 on the Wikimedia blog, and I'd love any feedback or comments you have on it. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi, in 2014 IAAF Diamond League, some of the winners in the 'results' table are marked in grey. The article does not say what this means. Does anyone know? Ssu (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@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 2015 IAAF Diamond League. 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. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now explained and fixed the grey backgrounds in 2014 IAAF Diamond League and the other years which use grey. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Ssu (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk BLP disturbingly bad article

I used to edit fairly regularly, but don't anymore. However, I stumbled across the Andriy Slyusarchuk 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.

70.67.150.60 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Hi all,

What is going on?

In the European Parliament a proposal (amendment) has been submitted to limit the Freedom of Panorama in Europe. The proposal is part of a larger plan to harmonize the copyright law in the various countries of the European Union.

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.

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.

Freedom of panorama?

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.

• 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.

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.

Which proposal involved?

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 ...

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;

When is the vote on this report?

Thursday 9 July.

Can we do something against it?

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.

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 sv:Misplaced Pages:Panoramafrihet or de:Misplaced Pages:Initiative für die Panoramafreiheit. (Just as had been done with SOPA in 2012.)

What can I do?

• Send an e-mail to one or more Members of the European Parliament from your country/area (list of members on Misplaced Pages and list of the members on the site of the European Parliament (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: 1, 2, 3.

Where is the coordination?

Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015

Here, press releases, media reports, and more matters can be reported / added / suggested.

Feedback for the suggested banner text and landing page can be provided here: Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages.

Where can I read more information?

Read the article in the Signpost at: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion, links, blogs and more information

• Thanks for raising this at VP, Romaine, 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 Jheald in Signpost this week, at Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe and, borrowing heavily from that, I wrote a piece on Medium over the weekend: Freedom of Panorama is under attack.

We definitely need to take action over this. Please {{ping}} me if I don't check in on any proposals, decisions or !votes. — OwenBlacker (director/trustee of Open Rights Group; Talk)

• Do we know if this will also affect EFTA countries? Will Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein eventually be required to implement the revised Copyright Directive? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• The discussion on dewiki has more great blacked-out images. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• More:
  • Michael Zhang, Alert: Freedom of Panorama under Threat in Europe, Petapixel, 20 June 2015. Also on Facebook
  • Paul Wilkinson, PR use of public images under FOP threat - 21 June 2015 -- discusses press release put out by PR industry, , 18 June

Jheald (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• @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. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm the wrong person. I think you want User:Slaporte (WMF) from Legal. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Banner alert campaign

Something like the banner below has been suggested, geo-targeted to readers browsing from countries in Europe.

A proposal in the European Parliament brings thousands of images on Misplaced Pages in danger.
More information

or

A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Misplaced Pages.

Learn more...

Alternate designs can also be proposed/discussed at c:Commons:Freedom of Panorama 2015/Proposed messages.

See also corresponding discussion on de-wiki.

What do we think ?

Support banners

1. 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. Jheald (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Strong support. What Jheald said. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
3. 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
4. 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.

   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. – SJ + 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

5. Support This is a direct threat to Misplaced Pages's mission. Reywas92 00:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
6. 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. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
7. 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. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Support This affects our core mission.  Sandstein  20:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Support We need to stand up for our content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support banners that do not advocate a particular action

1. 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. --Boson (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Boson: How about the white banner I added above? It's another option being discussed on Commons. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose banners

1. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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? Mdann52 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Mdann52: Per current views on WP:NFC, 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 List of public art in the City of Westminster 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. Jheald (talk) 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 WP:NFCC. 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? Mdann52 (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Mdann52: Unfortunately, WP:NFLISTS disagrees here:

   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 Instagram, this proposal would mean that articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia could never be populated to become less patchy. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

2. 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. Fuebaey (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Fuebaey: As Jheald mentioned above, list articles, such as List of public art in the City of Westminster, would be completely decimated. And WP:NFC 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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 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 a justification rationale 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, banner blindness 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. Fuebaey (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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 User:Stefan2 points out below, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be 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 WP:NFC policies, though, your analysis is contradicted by WP:NFLISTS, as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:

   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 Instagram), this proposal would mean that articles like List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia 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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

3. 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 The Signpost for news and announcements. We should redirect all these petitions to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Misplaced Pages is not a place for advocacy on any topic. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 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 one issue. 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. Nyttend (talk) 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. – SJ + 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 File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, 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 such a situation with those images. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   The situation is effectively the same as with File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, 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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   User:Nyttend: See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy: an EDP, such as WP:NFCC, must be 'in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed'. The United Kingdom seems to be a country where English Misplaced Pages predominantly is accessed, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

5. 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 neutrality should be achieved. Esquivalience 20:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Esquivalience: I would suggest that removing most images of modern European buildings and art from the Misplaced Pages would qualify as a serious threat. WP:NPOV 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. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 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 not a petition site - 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. Esquivalience 03:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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 WP:SOAPBOX 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:

   Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake.
   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.
   — Speaking out: guidance on campaigning and political activity by charities, Gov.uk

   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 WP:NFC 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 Brutalist architecture (and 10 of the 35 gallery thumbnails) would be affected, for example, introducing a systemic bias against modern European art, artists, architects and architecture and such articles. (I'm sympathetic to your argument on sizing ☺) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

6. 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. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I sympathize very much with the cause, but I can't support advocacy. Everyking (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

   @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? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Fuebaey. Leave your politics at home. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

1. @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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on banners

• 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 SOPA initiative from several years back, but there's debate over whether that set a precedent, and if it did, to what extent. Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2015 (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 vision to share the sum of all knowledge. WMF has shown with the SOPA initiative 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. Romaine (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Risker: As User:Stefan2 points out below, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy states that an Exemption Doctrine Policy must be 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 WP:NFC policies, WP:NFLISTS would, prohibit many of the uses we have at the moment., as I replied to Mdann52 earlier:

  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 List of public art in the City of Westminster (and 50 other articles in Category:Lists of public art in the United Kingdom), List of public art in Copenhagen or even List of football stadiums in Germany, List of lighthouses and lightvessels in Germany, List of tallest buildings in Berlin and List of statues of Stalin would suffer greatly — and that lists like List of public art by Oldenburg and van Bruggen or List of tallest buildings in Valencia could never be populated to become less patchy.

  — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Risker: I like the more informative and neutral wording of the white banner. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The page here should state "more than a decade" and not "over a decade". Lugnuts 06:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts:  Done — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Lugnuts 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would recommend people read WP:BLUDGEON before they ping everyone who voted to oppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages village pump
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links