Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

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 pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Drone Photo Contest?

I had a random thought: how about a WP drone photo contest? It would consist of HD images taken from drones for articles that currently have no decent photo, such as a shot of a town or village from altitude. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very fine idea. Drone photos and footage is very often very compelling. BUT. I do have a concern about wikipedia being seen to be inciting drone use given that in many venues and jurisdications the use of drones, at least by unlicenced operators, is illegal. (Citation needed, etc). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that depending on what is being photographed and in what jurisdiction there could be freedom of panorama issues. Perhaps you should bring this up at Commons? --Majora (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this useful. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikipedia deal with retributive types of actions that span articles?

For example if a person or clique takes exception to an edit or comment on one article (even if valid) and instead of (or in addition to) responding to that, make an attack on the editor or their contributions on another page? Kinda hard to prove but have the impression it goes on quite a lot? Eversync (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding is part of the policy. See the section Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment or the advice page Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I catch a vandal or a troublemaker, I follow all his/her recent edits; this is not harassment, but seeking to redress bad actions. So it all depends upon who is right: if I am wrong it is harassment, if I am right I am a protector of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I only take action in clear-cut cases; if it is the case to give the benefit of doubt, I do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of harassment is relevant but apparently only meant to be used when the primary motivation is to cause distress. That doesn't necessarily apply if people are simply acting out of a certainty that they are right, or that they have the status or power to enact their beliefs about what is right. Perceptions of troublemaking is relevant but, as you say, what if it is not clear cut, what if that perception is simply based on a failure to assume good faith or to understand the legitimacy of other points of view? At the end of the day the violation is still there - rather than sticking to collaboratively addressing an issue on one page, acting indirectly via another page in a way intended to appear unconnected (or at least to have plausible deniability that it is connected). Eversync (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT and WP:NPA. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those would cover it in theory but how in practice is it dealt with? (given that it's done precisely because it's indirect and can be denied). Eversync (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard WP:DR mechanisms. First you tell him to knock it off, then you do that again, then you ask an uninvolved admin or other experienced user to take a look (e.g. WP:3O), and if he still hasn't caught on, WP:ANI--preferably with diffs of the problematic behavior. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. What if it's a clique though, and the only evidence is circumstantial that: the clique has been involved in both articles; that it's plausible that they took a new comment about a long-term flaw in a featured article personally; that their non-response to that comment seems strange given its importance; that the timing of a subsequent dredging up of an old contribution on another page seems unlikely and hasn't been explained; that the criticism of that contribution turned out to be false but the final confirmation of that falsity was not responded to by anyone nor the related deletion of the contribution reversed. I mean they will obviously just deny anything and point out they don't have to reply to anything, and it would just be dropped wouldn't it? I mean no one's going to be able or willing to check whether there was any communication between members of the clique about it as a strategy, are they? (and there may not have been specifically, someone could have just done it knowing how the clique feels in general). Eversync (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then they appear to be acting as WP:meatpuppets (or WP:tagteaming). But regardless, you're dragging yourself closer to the actual case of interest rather than the hypothetical, so it seems that you should actually pursue the dispute resolution in question rather than speculating. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word of caution: Be aware of WP:Boomeranging in taking a discussion to a dispute resolution location. Your own behavior will possibly be examined, if you are involved in some way. --Izno (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, it's appreciated. I don't see that it could boomerang in that sense but certainly in terms of interpersonal stress, which is why I wanted to get more of an idea if there was any real chance of a productive outcome. I get the sense there isn't because there is a grey area between all the above concepts and just cliques being cliques in a power structure which it doesn't seem Wikipedia is designed to really stand up to. Eversync (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification: Don't take it to 3O, DRN, or MEDCOM. Those DR mechanisms will not accept conduct disputes. Conduct disputes must of that type must go to an admin or ANI. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think that we deal with this relatively poorly. But it's also worth remembering that coincidences happen, and that what looks like deliberate retribution could be the opposite: someone might have seen your recent edit, thought it was great, and wanted to know more about your editing – and more or less accidentally found a potential problem. I've had editors go through every single edit that I've made over long periods of time, and that doesn't always mean that they're harassing me.

OTOH, there are groups of editors that push beyond the limits of collaborative behavior. Generally speaking, though, if those groups still exist, then they are generally powerful in the community. Some people might call the group that regularly hangs out at at the WP:Fringe theories noticeboard a "clique", but their efforts tend to gain more appreciation than criticism – except, of course, from the people they disagree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a written guideline on whether a photo is preferred to non-photographic art

Regarding this thread, is there a written guideline that says that for a biography, a (free-use) photograph is preferred to a (free-use) drawing or painting? I'm sure that in the past I've seen paintings removed from infoboxes on the grounds that photos give an accurate representation, whereas for non-photographic art there is a degree of WP:OR and a possible WP:NPOV violation. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If both are equally free, there's no guideline for which to use as the lede image. We'd want one that is the best representation of the person (or whatever is pictured), which nearly always will be the photo but there are clear cases where other images can be acceptable. If we have an aging actress where we have her photo in the 90s, but she was known as a starlet in her 20s, and we have a free reasonable accurate drawing of her then, that might be preferable. For an artist who had done a self-portrait in their own style (something like Hand with Reflecting Sphere for M.C. Escher), that might be preferred over the photo. But there's no hard, set guidelines once you've met the free-ness of the images. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guideline of which I'm aware. However I would strongly object to anybody who suggests photographs are NPOV. I even started an essay called "NPOV is a problem for images" some years ago, although I never polished it until I fully liked it (consider it a very rough draft). The main thesis is that photographs definitely can have a non-neutral point of view. For example, the image on the "Freeway" Rick Ross article has always struck me as a prime example of an obviously non-neutral POV image that's trying to give a reader a deliberate positive impression. It's basically a PR photograph. I take issue with many professional headshots that appear on the articles for actors and actresses. By trade a professional photographer is trying to get the "best" photo of you, not a typical (that is, encyclopedic) one. I also think that photographs can at times function as original research, although this is more abstract and I digress. The problem of non-neutral point of view and original research is not limited to paintings. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have a good demonstrable case of NPOV with regards to photographs, and that was (during the election cycle) which image of Donald Trump to use (see Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_28#Official_photo), in that in the options of "non-official" but free photos, some portrayed Trump in a different light, which could be taking negatively. If multiple photos are available, and there are potential issues of neutrality, that should be considered. But I would also take issue with saying that "professional" headshots are too promotional. For someone that is a celebrity where these shots will be taken, we prefer these if they are free as it likely best represents the person by that person's own view, the photographer's own view, and our own view. We'd readily prefer that posed headshot against a quick snap of a celeb out shopping at 7/11, for example, even if the latter is seemingly more neutral. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't that a 7/11 slurpee run photo is a good photo for the article, it's that there's a middle ground between it and the studio headshot that more closely captures neutrality. Many red carpet shots of actors while they were just walking are good photos from an encyclopedic perfective and capture the subject naturally. The real problem is that people are biased to prefer the best-looking photograph over the "matter of fact" one but neutrally suggests we need to aim for the matter-of-fact image. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not what you were looking for, but there is some long-standing advice about using drawings for sex-related images (rather than, e.g., porn stills). Additionally, you should use a drawing when that is more educational, e.g., most anatomical and botanical drawings (because any given example isn't perfectly average). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a biography of a living person. Pierre Bourdieu couldn't really be thought of as being out of the public eye, so free-use photos are not unobtainable. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about minor plagiarism from an article

In searching online for sources to improve an article I created in 2009, I found a book whose introduction uses three sentences from the article word for word. This is a proper academic book, written by an apparent expert in the field and published by a well-known academic publisher. The book was just published this year, and there is no question that it is using my original wording without attribution. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that I don't consider this a copyright infringement. They're just three sentences, after all. The only related guidance I've found on Wikipedia seems to be about larger parts of articles copied onto websites. Would it be appropriate to contact the author and/or publisher? I know there are professional codes of ethics against even minor plagiarism like this. I don't want to get anyone in trouble; I'd just rather the book used the author's own words. Or am I taking this too seriously? Ntsimp (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are really short, generic sentences, three verbatim unattributed sentences is copyright infringement. Full stop. You could contact the publisher to have the wording removed, and they'd likely do it. But better is to send a letter proving the words are yours and demanding some amount of fair compensation. If they don't agree, sue them. There's zero reason to be worried about getting somebody in trouble. Somebody should get in trouble. While you gave away your work under a CC license, somebody else stole your words and intended to profit from them. It is a serious matter and they deserve no sympathy for their wrongdoing. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits are expensive. Even the minimum, which is a US $35 copyright registration fee, sounds like more than you'd like to pay.

I believe that User:Nephron cut a deal with an infringer recently, in which he'd overlook their license violation in return for them uploading some high-quality images to Commons. There are also ways to fix the license violation, e.g., by adding correct attribution. So you might think creatively about the kind of "compensation" that would appeal to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of WP:CIRCULAR?

I have just noticed that the article on Condom, Gers contains a template inviting translations from the French version of the article. is this not an invitation to use another Wiki as a source, contrary to WP:CIRCULAR?. Britmax (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference between the content of an article (translating from a different wiki is taking content from it) and the sources of an article (which is what WP:CIRCULAR is about). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing languages?

In English articles, the full list of all available translations is provided under the "Languages" section. However, in other Wikipedias (e.g. Persian, Chinese) only a few languages are listed with the remainder listed under a button named "Other ## Languages". What criteria do languages need to meet in order not to be listed under that category? For example, let's say I want the listed languages for a Persian Wikipedia article to be "Arabic, English, Kurdish, Pashto, Turkish", and then have the "Other ## Languages" button underneath that. The reason I ask is that most Iranian and Afghan Persian Wikipedia users may not be looking for article translations into Finnish for example, but rather into a local language, so moving those languages from the "Other Languages" category to be listed under the main Languages would be better than some of the other options listed under there now. How can that be accomplished? Yilangren (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilangren: Try going to Preferences → Beta features, and enabling "Compact language links". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Yes that works for me specifically, but my question is about the general audience and appearance for everyone visiting the article, and not how specific users can see languages relevant to them. Yilangren (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an old superlatives mass page move thread

It was about changing eg. List of biggest XXXX in the world --> List of biggest XXXX

I posted at the pump before but more were changed via a Request for Comment at some talk page. I can't seem to find that talk page. Does anyone remember where that was?

Thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Was it Talk:List of tallest buildings#Requested move 4 September 2016 ? Not an RFC, but otherwise it fits your description. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah lovely. Thank you so much, John. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account?

Moved to WP:AN

I found an account that had been inactive for a while and suddenly had a new edit from an apparent "hacker" that seems to have broken into the account. The hack statement threatened death and stated what is possibly the account holders name. the accounts contribs, the talk page -glove- (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running pilot project to trial importing text from UNESCO open access publications into Wikipedia

Dear all

I'm running a pilot project to import text from UNESCO open access publications into Wikipedia, I'm working with subject matter experts at UNESCO to identify sections of publications that may be suitable, I have also created a simple guide for finding other UNESCO open license publications that may have suitable text. I have done some small tests and found it takes around 2 hours to create a high quality 2000 word article including referencing all the links the publication uses. Please take a look here.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening RFC

Dear users. A request has opened to decide if apply a Global ban against Marrovi. Other users who have relevant information can participate. Here is the link; You can also review the guidelines here. For the same policies I have to notify in the projects that he participate. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive archiving talk pages of article

I'm curious what other editors think about archiving an article's talk page on a frequent basis. I've noticed that there are quite a few articles out there that have frequent archiving (30 days), but very few comments. While I know that archived content is still accessible, that extra click(s) and digging seems to decrease the likelihood of a legitimate concern or past criticisms from being expanded upon. If the same concern is being raised over and over by different editors, it will not be readily apparent. Am I out to lunch here? Is archiving sometimes used as a way to minimize debate and maximize the likelihood of status quo? I'm considering writing an essay on the subject of archiving, as I don't believe one exists. Any and all comments on archiving would be appreciated. Thanks. Dig Deeper (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages. Thirty days sounds too fast unless the page is extremely active. Talk pages of articles don't usually turn over that quickly, though noticeboards have to archive in a matter of days. If you see an article talk page with a too-short archiving time, leave a post on it and propose a change. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connected Open Heritage - photo exibition

Dear all,
the Wikimedia project Connected Open Heritage - led by Wikimedia Sverige - is organizing a photo exhibition aimed at enhancing the importance of the digital preservation of the global cultural heritage. The pictures displayed will not only portray monuments, but they will also tell their stories by showing the transformations they went through because of wars, natural disasters or simply human negligence. Everyone can contribute to the project by suggesting a story concerning a cultural property in danger: the pictures can be uploaded by the 7th of December.

We are looking forward to receive your stories! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 09:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]