Template:Did you know nominations/Achelous and Hercules
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Achelous and Hercules
edit... that the Achelous and Hercules mural, in which Thomas Hart Benton transplanted Greek mythology to the rural United States, is an example of Regionalism in art?
- A possible rewording: ... that Thomas Hart Benton's mural Achelous and Hercules is an example of Regionalist art that transplants Greek mythology to the U.S. Midwest?
ALT1... that Achelous and Hercules now hangs in the Smithsonian, but was originally painted by Thomas Hart Benton for display in a Kansas City women's clothing store?
- ALT1 suggested rewording: ... that Thomas Hart Benton's mural Achelous and Hercules, now on display at the Smithsonian, was originally painted for a women's clothing store in Kansas City?
Created/expanded by Cynwolfe (talk). Nominated by Maile66 (talk) at 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
: Superb, more please; original hook (to which I've added commas), length, date checked out, AGF for offline sources, good to go (re ALT1: as it stands it's not clear from the article that the painting "hangs", ?ie is on show?, in the Smithsonian rather than being rolled up somewhere in its vaults; the dimensions of the image may mean a crop if it's to feature in the lead slot (with accompanying (X pictured)), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've alerted the author re the Smithsonian question. Maile66 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The image, although on Wikimedia Commons, is of a 1947 painting, and therefore almost certainly copyright and ineligible for DYK. It's a beautiful painting, but I've started a deletion nomination at Commons because of the copyright issues. I don't know whether the image could be in the article under fair use provisions, but that wouldn't allow it on DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, but hopefullly Freedom of Panorama - US - public artwork installed between 1923 and 1977 might apply? sorry, so used to dealing with crumbly old things that forgot about that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I too am used to dealing with crumbly old things. As an illustration of the article specifically about the painting, fair use applies, but unless the public artwork exemption noted above applies, my understanding is that the image can't be used on the Main page. It could still be a DYK without the image, yes? I'll let others sort out the legal issues, but I appreciate being alerted to the DYK nom. I dashed this off when I found it while working on the set of articles about Hercules, and I was left with the same questions posed above. I've got the link to the work's page at the Smithsonian, which is not as helpful as I'd hoped. It gives info from the "exhibition label," but I don't know whether that means it's on permanent display, or whether that means "when we have it on display, this is the info label we provide with it." The Smithsonian does give info I wanted to incorporate. Will try to improve the article today and tomorrow. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It can definitely be a DYK article without the image. Be sure the image is removed before approving the article. As for the Freedom of Panorama, the artworks section there seems to specifically disallow assertion of public domain unless it can be shown that the artist did not get copyright protection. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I too am used to dealing with crumbly old things. As an illustration of the article specifically about the painting, fair use applies, but unless the public artwork exemption noted above applies, my understanding is that the image can't be used on the Main page. It could still be a DYK without the image, yes? I'll let others sort out the legal issues, but I appreciate being alerted to the DYK nom. I dashed this off when I found it while working on the set of articles about Hercules, and I was left with the same questions posed above. I've got the link to the work's page at the Smithsonian, which is not as helpful as I'd hoped. It gives info from the "exhibition label," but I don't know whether that means it's on permanent display, or whether that means "when we have it on display, this is the info label we provide with it." The Smithsonian does give info I wanted to incorporate. Will try to improve the article today and tomorrow. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, but hopefullly Freedom of Panorama - US - public artwork installed between 1923 and 1977 might apply? sorry, so used to dealing with crumbly old things that forgot about that, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've alerted the author re the Smithsonian question. Maile66 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion seems to have ended (quickly), is everything ok with this now? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- No. We're still waiting on the copyright status of the piece, which affects whether the image can legitimately be used. Cynwolfe's latest comment in the Wikimedia deletion discussion would seem to indicate it is under copyright, which would prevent the image from being used along with one of the hooks. The hooks themselves are fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- So is someone else researching this further? I'm almost certain it's ineligible as an image the Main page. But fair-use with the article, right? Does that mean it shouldn't be used with any other article then? I had it in a gallery with a Hercules article, but have now replaced it with something infinitely more boring. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like your wording on the hooks better. Would it be acceptable DYK procedure to just swap out my wording with Cynwolfe's wording?Maile66 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've struck out the original wording on both hooks—it's helpful to have a paper trail—and since none of the facts have changed, there shouldn't be any problem with approving the new versions.
- I actually like your wording on the hooks better. Would it be acceptable DYK procedure to just swap out my wording with Cynwolfe's wording?Maile66 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- So is someone else researching this further? I'm almost certain it's ineligible as an image the Main page. But fair-use with the article, right? Does that mean it shouldn't be used with any other article then? I had it in a gallery with a Hercules article, but have now replaced it with something infinitely more boring. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- No. We're still waiting on the copyright status of the piece, which affects whether the image can legitimately be used. Cynwolfe's latest comment in the Wikimedia deletion discussion would seem to indicate it is under copyright, which would prevent the image from being used along with one of the hooks. The hooks themselves are fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- As for the image, I may have good news, but it's murky. The image can be found on the Smithsonian website here, and this page has the website's copyright policy. As it stands now, the Wikimedia entry violates that policy, but there ought to be a way it could be brought into compliance. However, another page says that while SI has the compilation copyright, they might not have the copyright to individual items and have marked with "no known copyright restrictions" those pages where to the best of their knowledge there are none such. This painting's page, alas, does not have that wording anywhere. I would think that a fair use argument would work for this article, but not for any others, such as a gallery situation. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- My recommendation: drop the image from DYK. (I.e., remove it entirely.) It's very unlikely it could be used on the main page because of the copyright issues, and its shape makes it an unlikely candidate for the "picture" slot at the 100x100 resolution regardless. In the article, I'd keep it, and if the image is removed from Wikimedia Commons, I'd imagine it can be reloaded onto Wikipedia for the article with a good fair-use explanation. By "any others", I meant any other Wikipedia article page, which certainly extends to the site's main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've cut the image from this DYK template and replaced the Commons file in the article with a fair use version uploaded to en (hope all the relevant and necessary details are there, largely cribbed from one of User:Tony the Tiger's recent run); think we're again good to go, with either one of the two improved hooks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)