- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
V. S. Lelchuk
- ... that Vitaliĭ Lelʹchuk edited 13 arguments between historians?
- Reviewed: Pierre Mambele
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 21:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC).
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
- I'm a little puzzled by the status of the two images in the article, this and this. Both are tagged with the Commons "PD-ineligible" template, which says "This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Is that really applicable to book covers with original designs and artwork? Please could you point me to the policy or explanation as to why these are allowed?
- It's really a question of whether they are allowed on Commons. If they are then they are OK in the article. It's long established that covers made up of simple text, even stylised text, don't reach the level of originality sufficient to qualify for copyright protection. Take this one for instance which I put on Wikipedia under fair use but has been identified by someone else as too simple for copyright protection and therefore eligible for Commons. The second one in the article definitely qualifies, the first one I have taken the view that the small image is incidental to the rest (de minimis) and it too qualifies. Someone on Commons may argue but they haven't yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I've had a look at C:COM:BOOK, and I agree with you entirely on the second image. It's completely simple. The first one though... it features two images, the first of an unidentified logo of some sort, and the second a photograph of a sculpture, probably dating to around 1977. I would have thought that comes under the umbrella of what's not acceptable under C:COM:BOOK... Not sure if it's a big enough issues here though. Perhaps we can ask at the famed WT:DYK and get a third opinion... — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's not essential to the article so if you want something to promote just go ahead and remove it. It's no problem. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I've had a look at C:COM:BOOK, and I agree with you entirely on the second image. It's completely simple. The first one though... it features two images, the first of an unidentified logo of some sort, and the second a photograph of a sculpture, probably dating to around 1977. I would have thought that comes under the umbrella of what's not acceptable under C:COM:BOOK... Not sure if it's a big enough issues here though. Perhaps we can ask at the famed WT:DYK and get a third opinion... — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's really a question of whether they are allowed on Commons. If they are then they are OK in the article. It's long established that covers made up of simple text, even stylised text, don't reach the level of originality sufficient to qualify for copyright protection. Take this one for instance which I put on Wikipedia under fair use but has been identified by someone else as too simple for copyright protection and therefore eligible for Commons. The second one in the article definitely qualifies, the first one I have taken the view that the small image is incidental to the rest (de minimis) and it too qualifies. Someone on Commons may argue but they haven't yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
Image eligibility:
- Freely licensed: - na
- Used in article: - NA
- Clear at 100px: - NA
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Overall a good and interesting article and thanks to the authors for bringing it to our attention. It's possible a mutual friend of ours, who's fond of spotting errors, might object to the lack of citations in the "Selected publications" section, but I think the consensus has prevailed several times in the past that the books themselves are sufficient for such a section, even where the selection criteria is not obvious. So I won't fail it on that ground. Just need to clarify the image statuses, then it's good to go. I assume this hook is intended for the "quirky" column, as it's slightly confusingly stated, but sounds kind of funny so acceptable. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't have lots of hook options but historians fighting sounded sort of amusing as you say. I am endeavouring to reinforce that consensus as it keeps coming up. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- passing the nom, based on the discussion above. If the community feels the image is problematic, then we'll just remove it. All else is good. — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't find it hooky, much less quirky. The article doesn't even talk about "arguments", but "conversations". Can't you, the master of quirky hooks, Philafrenzy, come up with something better? Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- "The same year, he edited Istoriki sporjat: Trinadcat' besed (Historians argue: Thirteen conversations)." But I will see what I can do... Philafrenzy (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that Vitaliĭ Lelʹchuk joined with dissident and revisionist historians in a "historical glasnost" during the collapse of the Soviet Union? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Russians aren't known for their quirkiness, that's why they lost the Cold War, an endemic shortage of quirks. Whenever they did produce any, a huge queue would form and they would quickly sell out. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! @Amakuru: would you mind reviewing ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- - @Yoninah: @Philafrenzy: apologies, I saw this ping at the time and then forgot to come back to it. ALT1 looks fine to me, although I've tweaked "an historical" to "a historical" because that's the far more common usage, and I've rarely seen the other on Wikipedia. To be honest I was fine with ALT0 too, but this is fine. — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- The Russians aren't known for their quirkiness, that's why they lost the Cold War, an endemic shortage of quirks. Whenever they did produce any, a huge queue would form and they would quickly sell out. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
