Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/July 20/archive1

July 20
Self nom. Comprehensive "day in history" page with references and illustrations. PedanticallySpeaking 16:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Um - "comprehensive"? Are you saying that everything of note that happened on 20 July ever is listed here, as well as anyone of note born or died on 20 July? Sorry, but I find that rather hard to believe. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if that's a joke or not. If it isn't, then I'm using "comprehensive" to mean "thorough".  PedanticallySpeaking 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a serious concern. How sure are you this list is "comprehensive" enough? And a long list is not necesarilly thorough. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a joke, I am afraid. Compare the coverage of events before 1900 to events during the 20th century: it seems that there were only two events of note on 20 July before 1700, only 2 in the first half of the 19th century, and only a dozen or so in the second half of the 19th century, but a whole section on every decade since; also, it would appear that only one person of note was born on 20 July before 1500, and only one person of note died on 20 July before 1000.  -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The 20th century events I researched myself through the New York Times. The handful of events before that are drawn from day-in-history reference books and lists such as those cited in the references and include all of those I could find.  Yes, I would like to have more earlier events, but do not know how I should obtain them.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Go to the article and use the "What links here" link in the toolbox. Read through all the articles and pick the relevant info. Sounds like a lot of work, but I think this kind of pages are unmantainable anyway. -- Rune Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; | Esperanza  13:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object:
 * The images Image:William Jennings Bryan.JPG, Image:Xuantong.jpg, Image:Biljana-plav.jpg have no source information.
 * The image Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg appears to have an unknown copyright status. I can't read German, so I can't check up on this.
 * The images Image:2002 wolympics logo.jpg, Image:Uganda-Amin-10-Shillings-cr.jpg, Image:WI-SRex-C 2x3 240.jpg, Image:James Doohan 1980s.jpg are tagged as "fair use", but are used for decorative purposes only. This is not allowed under Fair use.
 * The image Image:Jacques Delors Janez Drnovsek.jpg is tagged as "GFDL". There is no evidence that this is the case, though.  The source site's copyright statement seems to have gone 404.
 * --Carnildo 08:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We couldn't have a featured debate without objections over the photographs. The pictures objected to in point one for having no sourcing are all public domain photographs for Pu Yi and Bryan; as for the Bosnian, the photo's record says "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose."  The Hitler photograph is described as "public domain."  The images described under point three are clearly allowed under the fair use page cited, which specifically mentions logos, currencies, and publicity photographs.  And the fourth point mentions a GFDL license.  So I don't see any objection to using any of these photographs.
 * Do you have any comments on the text? PedanticallySpeaking 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * They may be public domain, or they may not. Without a source, there's no way of checking.
 * The image Image:Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg has a very big unknown tag and a link to w:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen. I can't read German, but it looks like someone's disputing that the image is in the public domain.
 * The images under point (3) are very clearly not allowed under Fair use. It specifically mentions "logos, currencies, and publicity photographs for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship, or research".  Further, "the material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose".
 * The image under point (4) is tagged as GFDL. There is no evidence that it is licensed under the GFDL.
 * It is quite possible to have a "featured" discussion without me objecting on the grounds of image copyright problems. You just need to resolve possible copyright problems before nominating the article.  About half of all nominations seem to manage this.
 * --Carnildo 00:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object – Agree with ALoan. I don't think a date or year can ever be called 'thorough' or 'complete' to qualify for FLC. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree that date and year pages can never reach "Featured List" standards. It may be a hell of a lot more difficult than with normal lists, but it should certainly be possible, just as it's hypothetically possible for almost any article to reach "Featured Article" standards; "comprehensive" means "extremely thorough", not "perfect". Renominate this once it's less chronologically biased towards recent events. Incidentally, now that User:Calton has removed all the images from this page, readers will be infinitely less likely to actually read more than a couple of lines of the page. People need prettiness. In enormous lists more than anything, to keep the article grounded in actual people, places, events, etc., and not let it just slide into a giant sea of words and numbers. -Silence 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. PedanticallySpeaking 15:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)