Talk:Chronicle of the 20th Century

Did you know nomination

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 SL93 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Chronicle of the 20th Century was so large that reviewers worried that it was too heavy for coffee tables?
  • ALT1 ... that preparing the Chronicle of the 20th Century was so engrossing that one contributor decided to live on a week's rations from the Second World War but ate them all in a day and was still hungry?
  • ALT2: ... that the Chronicle of the 20th Century was said to be "the first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables"?
  • ALT2a:... that the Chronicle of the 20th Century was said to "threaten the well-being of coffee-tables"?
  • Comment: Still got a bit to do.
  • Reviewed: Mo Drake

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 23:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC).

• As Paradise "Chronicle" I allow myself to request some sources for the hooks in question. It'll just be more comfortable for the prepper and also for the reviewer if they see there is a source provided. And I'd be happy to review your DYK. The coffee table seems interesting.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You can find the sources clearly given in the article. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new and long enough, hook is interesting and accepted per AGF as I can't access the source. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Philafrenzy and Paradise Chronicle: that quote in the article is just too good to pass up—how do you feel about ALTs 2 and 2a? do you have a suggestion to make it punchier? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the original or Alt2 are the strongest. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that the Chronicle of the 20th Century was so heavy that it was said to be "the first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables"? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Happy to go along with ALT3 if Paradise Chronicle will tick it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am currently using my copy as a desk. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron it's all yours now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment — So is ALT3 approved? Also, there are two non-free images in the article ... are both of them necessary? (I think that the second image (this) isn't necessary, as (1) it represents almost the same thing as the first non-free image (2) the reader won't anyways read the text in the second image) I doubt whether the second image meets WP:NFCCP#3a – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The second shows the interior layout as discussed in the article body. How could it possibly be said to be the same as the first image? There is no rule that there can't be two non-free images if both are justified. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there is no rule guideline saying we can't have 2 or more non-free images in an article. But in my opinion, if the same thing conveyed by a non-free image could be written in the prose, it would be much better. I am not entirely satisfied if the second image is absolutely essential, but if it is just me, then maybe you can ignore this comment. Thanks for your work on this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So I reviewed the article on newness and other requirements for the DYK. All good so far. Now for the amount of non-free images used in the article there is no guideline and the two images show two different aspects of the chronicle as Philafrenzy pointed out. I therefore AGF the hook also on the images.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you need to add a new tick if you are happy to do so. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I do that? Instead I'll ping theleekycauldron once more.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle – If you are satisfied with ALT3, and assuming good faith on sources, you'll just need to add {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} below this comment with your sign. The hook will "formally" be approved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Newer North American revision

There is a more updated edition of the North American version where it covers from 1 January 1900 to 31 December 1999 under the title 20th Century Day by Day which uses the same format as Chronicle. It ran for two editions in late 1999 and in 2000. It also uses photographs from New Year's Eve celebrations during the start of 2000 in the second edition. I am just wondering if it would be included in the article because it is based on the franchise. CrisBalboa1 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, if it is really in the series, but not if it is merely similar. Do you own it? What does it say inside about its origins? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)