Template:Did you know nominations/Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world

 * ... that the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world groups countries into nine cultural clusters?
 * Reviewed: Whampoa anchorage
 * Comment: A more "sexy" hook can probably be found, for example about USA being one of the most traditional Western countries, if anyone want's to give it a try. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg : New enough; long enough; checked references for dups; QPQ good; good hook, at least it caught my eye. Two questions: 1) The image claims to be made by Dancing Philosopher from "the author's website" (i.e. Dancing Philosopher's or Welzel's?), but I don't know what to make of the fact that a Google image search [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiu8aOhOjlQmz_1afdAGf3djXXtGYE5mF2ruzdXCbMulZfbraXLMbhfU4Gp_1an4rELh0zKhm0MOWOd5O5I-PKOtzFS1Q2hSQR6VQZa4Dpi6zZG3PC3QAi6CCVb8Rs_1BkccBKtF60imFS3NOCLJe5r3IsFYJ952B8e9Y0EpIrR5wFiwWDdqeVuNIoqu4xbvOH1bvnWaxDt0h8psjtSJcZL0h_1k4-ClyiMdE5rLM5KHxYiJKUu73HbRl6tAXy7LcnVKocnj-Tz2Z5ERoYwfnEOLgrlsZwpaXhngCMbluDd7ZaREpmbaiTIwnESIHbakcdCHNkRW1OCD0kiJjhIkmD5BibFHu4tEG3OSssn6pfTX9iMrfBtP1rKSPMhS7jjSGkeqLh3xqsWypatVserIaDdCddjYq_1IRvMH4TX4dEAhYIUArrtsiD2QOELRDerJFvtifhou8CI9pUuMHOYlXwStzfBbKdKtatqUJ4_1QLEuZXsd7VhGEmfVgGFmmqkvrCzy1R91PJz5-gyfUX_1uhyg7sE1-mz340Iq3q15AxVcGRuMG8JgfbidE7PRflKIZBds28qkogzeyEyDErhDrMTuOoY57PbhqCC-Mgby0ZoRxZymYnlcC47Ca4x-nO6JUKAV8_1aai2hH7LU6iZVpbS9NIkAQScAV6R35cw-fuXxvP8Dz8uZS_18g3wTanEocCNvZcDXtbfoE-oeyTbBOcvw4DStrSpElgo5uLWhmZL5GPHMNy8QVQHXzCdRrpCKSwVlLriDfPTFKfaX7Ghy84CaArjM1OpXZBP_1e2rsMsQ6YPXxbsLBJfN2H7DAcQV8msURo-bQRb5xH-QLiQv2o1VpzRfyWXXa2IxVljbs4alg52taln39OGyEYZpj4gOTgRTxaM9LteAQhWwFGWaTUdPOB3Wi-kgKjE1wzM_1RPOBl4E3M43NoDhmgIzMGe4k3M2hHBBn8ZtXGggb5uSn3XE0AfbcouT4iubzsRoUOdU1EzD0PG6HSXAQVZZgG8a73wE9oZL2zUVoJyW7mFJOqH8bq2q3M5RsToeDulSCWTMhQ-0LoqSlYTPCcWrVq2ZZyPMC3qWcDao7v4Gpm34KnTqIOFG45SRy6mmzbe7y1XsyesKuzBStyI-3LHCxfGR2q7wgBNIlwI2uHQJgqQ0nxsTZ_1ueMj5boPyvU9a2Z-jgohWkCy8LvQbCVhD40SrR4kDEb-6U5LBTSi39XkS-bZmWpHm2I3iigT-MQIPdIwTgymfxoViCrqqWpwKkambqfUv75QQBzNt3sjf3uceBHQ78w0PNnrOTLc3jWcWPR_1zXMXqbwZ4gY3x5Qb8VLci1GWC47_1GKe7uxGKwBqdnW94ysPyo0g2i79W8SIc4zUT_1uySvQyDh1ZBVuT_1sFYbE0QDZ3WX4zmC9cXgLR6yORUgbxLj3ULm97x_1MiMqCEhYSGcOnoU5HrIt88rQC4rAe3mtfyKDpPwJn4ZfJ47p7inVVfDoEeojDIPrBvSVkGA here] shows that it is used in several commercial sites. Is this a problem? Could you clarify? 2) Though the article as a whole supports the hook, there is no reference directly documenting it. Could you rearrange the info into one place and footnote it there? Cheers ch (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ping User:DancingPhilosopher and let him explain the map's history. Regarding the hook, the article lists the nine groups and they are referenced; I don't think we need anything more? I don't think its original synthesis to simply count... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CALC, Piotrus is correct about the counting. That image copyright needs to be cleared up though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with copyright? It is a re-creation of a map using non-copyrightable data. I think recreations of maps or graphs are usually free? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Swoops in not all the time, but ask on Commons and you'll get a quick response you can link to Swoops out PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, why should I ask? Either you have specific concerns, or not. I think that this recreation is free. Nobody else makes a valid argument otherwise outside "I think it may not be so, perhaps". This is not enough, IMHO. If someone wants to counter this, nominate this image (and in fact the entire category we have) for deletions at Commons and we will see what happens, but I am not going to do so as I don't believe there's a good enough case for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the determination of copyright status is fairly clear based on the upload description of the map, which includes the sentence, "doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal". If that journal's copyright does not specifically allow sharing, like with creative commons, then this is basically a redrawing of a copyrighted work without the permission to do so, and the reason for the previous concern expressed by ch and Crisco. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; how about the hook without the image and minus the word "pictured"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Image: it was uploaded to Commons in 2014, but this appears to date back to 2012. Although there is not an issue with recreating graphs / maps with the same data, taking the maps themselves is a problem (assuming this 2012 date is correct). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe User:DancingPhilosopher mentioned to me a while back that the authors / other websites used his version of the image without attribution, but it would be best if he would comment here about this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Piotrus, DancingPhilosopher hasn't edited on Wikipedia for a month, and this nomination is now two months old. There wasn't an answer to your first ping on October 10, and DP did edit after that. I'm not sure how this can move forward under the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what is the issue here? If someone believes that images found in commons:Category:World Values Survey are a copyvio, this is a discussion to be held on Commons, not here. I am still waiting to hear why we cannot run this hook (minus pictured) after removing the image from it? There are no other problems with the article, I believe? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492's the expert here, so I'll defer to him as to the issues. That category basically ends up as commons:Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world. The 2012 instance Crisco cites is from June 19, but a nearly identical map, which was translated into German, was uploaded to Commons eleven days earlier, on June 8, 2012, by user "Chrugel". The page gives two links to worldvaluessurvey.org, neither of which is still extant, though the "Quelle" link is available on the Wayback Machine (which I found from its citation in the Wikipedia article): it shows a nearly identical map (just more crowded), sourced to "Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, "Changing Mass Priorities: The Link Between Modernization and Democracy." Perspectives on Politics June 2010 (vol 8, No. 2) page 554". "Perspectives on Politics" is an academic journal, published by Cambridge University Press for the American Political Science Association, and very clearly copyrighted (their copyright form is here). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just run this without the image... we've definitely got enough image hooks that it won't be an issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am totally fine with this being run without the image, as I suggested a while back. Can we get this approved now, as I believe no other issues remain? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator has agreed to run the hook without an image, supported via WP:CALC. As the original reviewer, would you mind signing off on this? Fuebaey (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , this now looks great to me: go for it! Significant article, too, which deserves the attention.ch (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg as per ch's review above. Fuebaey (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)