Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue

I don't want to upset the applecart at this point, but I'd like to suggest a change to the "hook", which is currently
 * ... that the statue of John Harvard (pictured) at Harvard University is not of John Harvard?

It doesn't really make sense to call something "the statue of John Harvard" and then immediately say it's "not of John Harvard". It's like saying "Michelangelo's statue of David is not of David." Well, of course it's not a likeness of the biblical David, because no one knows what he looked like, but nonetheless it's still a statue of David in that it represents him. The difference, of course, is that no one (I hope) imagines that the David statue looks like the historical David, while it's not impossible that a statue of John Harvard could actually look like him. Let me suggest instead
 * ... that Harvard University's John Harvard statue (pictured) is not a likeness of John Harvard?

EEng (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to suggest a change, but no. The hook as it is makes a nice, quirky hook that will get people interested in the article... assuming we can ever run the hook, given the persistent "citation needed" templates. Perhaps it's time for some of the older templates to disappear, along with the information that has proved resistant to verification. If it isn't verifiable after all this time, it probably ought to come out, and can be restored if sources ever do become available. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the hook as it is, is hooky and quirky. I would change the piped link though back to John Harvard statue, because quirky hooks should stop short of being misleading. "statue of John Harvard" doesn't mean the same thing as "Joh Harvard statue". Just a thought. Yazan (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the elimination of the piped link, even though I imagine people use the phrases interchangeably in conversation, which is why I have no problem with the hook as it is now. It's within the purview of the promoting editor to make that kind of change. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)