 | A fact from Fakemon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 November 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| .png){kind=spacer} |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Vaticidalprophet talk 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- ... that fan-made Fakemon (example pictured) have been confused for real Pokémon leaks? Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/fakemon-designer-explains-what-makes-a-pokmon-a-pokmon
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Connecticut field pumpkin
- Comment: The image is optional.
Created by Di (they-them) (talk). Self-nominated at 00:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fakemon; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
QPQ done, article's fine - long enough, new enough, no obvious issues such as plagiarism or copyvio. Hook's almost there but I think "real Pokemon leaks" might be a little unclear, especially to second-language speakers. I'm also not totally sure about the image: the hook implies that it's a Fakemon that has fooled people, but it seems to be simply an example made by a Wikipedian: to appear on the front page, I really think the image should have some sort of third-party testimony as to its significance. Suggest perhaps:
Not by any means wedded to that formulation: thoughts and comments most welcome. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: I think your alt hook is better, and I would be fine with that one being used. Also, if you think the image is not appropriate and/or is misleading, I have no qualms with not including it. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: Approved for ALT1 . UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
poking question
editFAY-kee-mon or FAYK-mon? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Fake-a-mon Mach61 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
PokeGods
editBulbapedia has an article on "PokéGods". Should we consider linking it in the article? Lizardcreator (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you can find reliable secondary sources discussing them, yes. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Higher image quality
editI found a higher quality version of the image uploaded by the author here: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darkandwindiefakemon/images/7/78/Parroot.png (i.e. from this page). Should we replace the original file? I wanted to do that myself, but File:Fakemon Parroot (transparent).png can only be edited by admins right now. Also, the copyright situation is kind of vague here (their wiki says If you wish to use any of them for something, contact me. Do not steal my work.
, but the YouTube upload is under a CC-BY licence), so I thought I'd bring it up here before doing anything stupid. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- The YouTube video being released under CC-BY overrides any non-legally binding statements such as "contact me". A CC license is irrevocable and legally binding. However, we can only use the lower-quality version because it's specifically derived from the YouTube video, so we can't take a version from anywhere else that isn't under that license. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Di, what about the thumbnail? Is it also freely licensed? — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did some searching and it turns out that the lower-res image's license passes on to the high-res image according to the Creative Commons FAQ: Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?. "However, if the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy."
- So, a higher res can definitely be used. Endoftalk 18:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)