Template:Did you know nominations/Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum


 * 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: rejected by sstflyer 16:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Andrew has raised correct concerns. Also, the maintenance tags on the article are still valid.

Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum

 * ... that guests, as well as museum staff, will be welcome to "cosplay" at the Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum?



Created by Check-Six (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg article is new enough and long enough. The hook is certainly interesting, but it is not fully supported by the reference you have there. As far as I can tell, the reference says that cosplay is allowed, but does not explicitly say that the staff are also involved in that regard. Have I misread it? If I haven't, could you find a different reference which confirms that the staff are also taking part? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Found and added a good/better ref as requested. Thanks for the suggestion, and I look forward to seeing it as a DYK. Check-Six (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All good now. This looks a great place to go, I know lots of people who would be interested in it &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome - thanks! What happens now, and is there anything I need to do? Check-Six (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just a web site right now. The museum is not expected to open until 2018. The image is a copyrighted logo, so I have my doubts it can be used. Additionally, a copyright expert needs to look at all the images used in the article. One of them has a copyright logo right across it. These were downloaded on August 24, 2015 as licensed by the uploader. However, all of them appear to have been copied from elsewhere.

— Maile (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The logo was deleted on Commons as a copyvio. It has been restored File:"Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum" logo.jpeg, bot tagged twice as having no license.  The uploader had twice removed the tag. This is a non-free image without an appropriate license. Per DYK Images rules, non-free images cannot be used on the main page.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg*The logo's was reupped with appropriate license, based on my understanding. The organization's CEO has granted use on Wikipedia for any WP purposes. Check-Six (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that the article is merely a statement of an organization that is set up to raise funds to establish this museum. Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum is a fund-raising website towards that end.  Again, per the DYK rules, DYK is not:A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. As stated in the article, the foundation behind the proposed museum is "founded to fund and over look the restoration process of the Paramount-built Star Trek Enterprise-D display bridge." Wikipedia's main page is not used for private or commercial fund raising. — Maile  (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg*The museum is non-profit (not commercial) and the DYK fact is simply an interesting fact about it. No funds are being asked for in the article or the DYK, so your point on this, as I see it, is moot. :-) The previous editor recognized the distinction. However, thanks for your interest. Check-Six (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't approve your own nomination. I have requested the input of an uninvolved person at WT:DYK — Maile (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, and didn't, approve my own nom. It was approved on the 29th by talk, who was an uninvolved person and to whom the questions you are asking have already been answered. Am not trying to be difficult here - I just don't see the point in 'reinventing the wheel' and further debating unnecessarily. Check-Six (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I see no major issues here (though one paragraph is unreferenced). I don't see how the hook could be considered promotional just because it talks about a company and what it does (or in this case a non-profit). If we banned this, then we would have to ban all hooks about companies. I don't think the hook is misleading either, since it does not imply that the museum is currently open (it uses the future tense). If I'm not mistaken, the image also does not meet the threshold of originality, and thus fair use is not necessary. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say the layout of the logo (differing font sizes, colors, etc) displays "at least some minimal degree of creativity". This company sure thinks that it's their property, at the very least, and we should not use it on the main page based on the guess-work that a court would find it to demonstrate no creativity. I've nominated the image for speedy deletion based on it being offered under the license "for Wikipedia only". ~ RobTalk 18:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The hook may not be promotional, but I felt like I was reading a press release rather than an encyclopedia in places, especially including the final History paragraph, which is pure promo after the name of the sister museum (which should have been mentioned earlier if it is truly a sister museum, as in organizationally affiliated with). The paragraph also needs an inline source citation, and I recommend that it support the sister museum claim if it's retained. The article also suffers from WP:PUFFERY, such as "boasts many distinguished names", and there's a bit of confusion as to the actual name of the 501(c)(3): is it one of the bolded names in the lede or is it New Starship Foundation? (Or is there more than one non-profit involved?) The article needs to be accurate on this detail. Finally, I have removed the image from this nomination; at present, it carries a non-free license, which makes it ineligible as a DYK image. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Added valid ref to final history paragraph, reworded cited puffery wording, and got ref on New Starship Foundation (original name of foundation, it is today, per Guidestar, also known as the Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum). Won't contest image non-inclusion for DYK. Check-Six (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, BlueMoonset, for the suggestions and edits. Check-Six (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The references are a little sketchy...one mention in Reuters, a brief mention in the Houston Press in an article about Comicpalooza, and other than that it all looks like LinkedIn, Guidestar, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and blogs. Is this really a notable subject? valereee (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the references are better than you state above. Cnet, Space.com, TrekToday, and more. Plus, the breadth of time period of these references establish, in my mind, notability. I mean, to borrow from Game of Thrones, "It is known..." And regardless, I would - bias aside - give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Check-Six (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good article.It's fully referenced, neutral and has no close paraphrasing. Hook is interesting & verified through online sources. QPQ N/A. Good to go to me! FrogmanOfTheSahara (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Welcome to wikipedia.  valereee (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article has a huge dispute tag for multiple issues across the top. Needs to be resolved before passing.
 * - D6 of Supplementary Guidelines. The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.)
 * - Reviewing guide Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem.
 * — Maile (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish this enterprise well but the hook and article seem in breach of WP:CRYSTAL. The first source I check says that the place is opening in 2015 but that doesn't seem to be happening now and the organisation's website doesn't give much clue about the current timetable. This is clearly a work-in-progress and we should not be making definite statement about what will be happening when this is still just a maybe. Putting this on the front page in its current tentative state would be too much in violation of WP:SOAP. Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)