Talk:Ladies Musical Club of Seattle

Latest comment: 1 year ago by BorgQueen in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

edit
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 BorgQueen (talk03:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 
Ladies Musical Club members posing for the club's 30th anniversary, Seattle, 1921

Created by Jmabel (talk). Self-nominated at 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ladies Musical Club; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

  New enough - created 6 March, nom 7 March; long enough - 3553 char; cited; neutral; no apparent copyvios - Earwig hits on names and quotes; QPQ done. Hooks are verified in article immediately following statement and source verifies information. Under maximum limit. Issues: Photo has a tag that says info needs to be verified. States "taken March 21, 1921" copyright relies on published date, not taken date. Was it published? If not, it is ineligible for free release until 120 years after creation or life of the author + 70 years, if the creator died before 1953. He died in 1950[1]. Thus, it seems to be compliant, but may have the wrong US tag. If it wasn't published the US tag should be {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Can't determine the correct tag at this stage. Agree hook 0 is most interesting but can we lose redundant "Seattle" and possibly replace perform in Seattle with perform in the city? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW: "in the city" is fine with me, though I think "in that city" would be better.
As for copyright status: I can't be certain, but Frank Nowell was a professional photographer (among other things, the main photographer for the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, and presumably would at least have made multiple copies for club members (which would have constituted publication under U.S. copyright law at that time), though of course I can't prove it. He probably would never have registered a copyright (he didn't usually on group portraits for organizations). I'm not the original uploader, but speaking as a Commons administrator, even with Commons "precautionary principle" this is the sort of thing where we consider it so unlikely that there is a copyright issue that we would consider this acceptable. I haven't been in enough recent discussions on en-wiki on this sort of thing to know if the standards here may now be even tighter than Commons'. Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
  I'm going to tick it Jmabel and let the promoter make the final call on wording. I concur in that city is fine. I also know that based on my analysis above, the photograph is compliant, I am just not sure about the tags we should use. As you are a commons admin, I bow to your authority and appreciate your discussion on the tagging. By the way, interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
  @Jmabel and SusunW: This article was overly reliant on primary sources but I've now added lots of secondary sources and content (making me ineligible to promote this article). I would like to draw your attention to one in particular, as it contains so much in-depth detail about the Ladies Musical Club of Seattle, it would take some time to carefully consider which parts are most salient to the Wikipedia article:
Blair, Karen J. (1986). "The Seattle Ladies Musical Club, 1890–1930". Experiences in a Promised Land: Essays in Pacific Northwest History. University of Washington Press. pp. 124–138.
Based on the research I've now done, I would argue that the Ladies Musical Club of Tacoma in particular could easily be a candidate for a Wikipedia article – there is extensive coverage in secondary sources about it – and there was also a Ladies Musical Club of Bellingham that is also discussed (though it may not meet our notability requirements per WP:ORG or WP:GNG). Based on this, I don't believe the name Ladies Musical Club for the Seattle one is a stable article title; I don't know what is done in these cases (when the other variations don't yet exist), but I wanted to call this to your attention before the DYK runs, in case you want to consider other names for this article now. (Perhaps Ladies Musical Club of Seattle as the primary, instead of as a redirect?) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
As reviewer, I'm not sure it's within my role to rename the article and I have no earthly clue how to do that without breaking some link to the DYK nomination. That said, I would concur that Ladies Musical Club of Seattle is probably a better title. Even without Cielquiparle's helpful work, logic tells me that there were probably many of these organizations throughout the US, and possibly elsewhere. SusunW (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd have no objection to a move, though I believe (someone can tell me if I'm wrong) the legal name of the organization is "Ladies Musical Club" not "Ladies Musical Club of Seattle", so I would think a rename should be to "Ladies Musical Club (Seattle)" not "Ladies Musical Club of Seattle". Anyway, I'm fine with whichever. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
  I boldly moved it to Ladies Musical Club of Seattle as that's the name the organization uses on its own website and on its Facebook page. For now, Ladies Musical Club will redirect by default to the Seattle one, as it's the only one with a Wikipedia article. Restoring green tick. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
  NODES
admin 2
Note 1
Project 18