This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
This article is
related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
A fact from Dalí Atomicus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that before photographer Philippe Halsman decided to photograph three cats flying through the air(pictured), surrealist artist Salvador Dalí had wanted to blow up a duck with dynamite?
Voorts and
Dying, hopefully it won't be deleted, but if so please move a copy to English Wikipedia before deleting. This image is the principal page image for this article and thus would be a fair use image. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks @
Dying for your research into this. Your explanation makes sense, but I haven't dug into it at all. The fact that the Estate claims copyright and the MOMA recognizes that claim gives me pause. Given that the close at Commons tied this image to the unfinished photograph, I think the close rationale was incorrect, so perhaps you can share this with the closer and see if they're willing to reopen the discussion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)reply
did you know nomination
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.
Salvador Dalí jumping while three cats fly through the airDalí Atomicus (1948)
Unretouched version of Dalí Atomicus, with wires visibleDalí Atomicus, unretouched
... that before photographer Philippe Halsman decided to photograph three cats flying through the air(pictured), surrealist artist Salvador Dalí had wanted to blow up a duck with dynamite?
... a collaboration between Dalí and the photographer Phillippe [sic] Halsman, in which three cats are seen flying through the air .... "Dalí said, 'I have an idea. Let's take a duck and put some dynamite up his derriere and blow him up.' And my father said, 'Oh you can't do that. You're in America. You might get arrested,'" Irene Halsman recounted ....
Created seven days ago and nominated today, i.e. that's just on time. Neutral. Suitably referenced. Earwig is clean. The problem is that the article is a stub with hardly any prose (385 B) and a very long off the 1,500 B that is set as the minimum for DYK eligibility. Hence, short of a major expansion, this nomination will have to be rejected. The other problem is that the hook fact does not appear in the article! Schwede6600:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
apologies,
Schwede66! i've already done the research to expand the article to the appropriate length, but am still typing it up. i just wanted to nominate the article before the deadline, as i mentioned above. (i admittedly ended up spending entirely too much time researching whether halsman renewed the copyright.) i should have the article properly expanded within a day, at which point it should include the hook fact. is that alright?
dying (
talk)
01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
What a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed reading that one! Earwig appears to be down. Otherwise, the article now passes all the required checks. A minor content issue is that the two photos are described as being side-by-side, but on any of the three screens that I've checked (cellphone, laptop, big screen), they are on top of one another – please fix the caption. QPQ has been done. Hook is certainly interesting and the hook fact is referenced. The other snag is that the main photo is currently up for deletion; I suggest we park this until that issue has resolved itself as it's certainly a strong contender for a lead hook. Schwede6602:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
thanks, Schwede66! i'm glad you enjoyed reading it. yes, i agree that the nomination should be put on hold due to the deletion discussion.also, thanks for pointing out the caption issue! i completely forgot about the possibility that one photo could appear above the other instead of next to it. i was trying to figure out if replacing "(left)" with "(left or top)" would be appropriate when i realized that there was actually no need to state that the photos were juxtaposed to allow for easy comparison, as this should be self-evident.i believe i've now reformatted the gallery so that it is platform independent. please let me know if this is not the case.
dying (
talk)
15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Earwig is clean. Caption is resolved.
Dying, could you please keep an eye on the deletion discussion and give me a ping when that's been resolved? Schwede6617:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Halsman took the photo in 1948, so what's a few more months? It's such an incredible photo; in my view, this should definitely be the lead hook. Hence my preference is to wait it out. Schwede6607:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
To be clear, the former version of the photo is unambiguously in the public domain (and is a featured picture on Commons). The retouched version with the brighter tones is the one to which the DR applies. This can be approved now and run as an image hook.
Vaticidalprophet16:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
i'm in no rush, and don't mind waiting it out. also, as the unretouched version has previously appeared on the main page, i think it would be nice to give the final version a chance to be featured on the main page as well.
dying (
talk)
17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
There's a limit to how long we can or should wait at DYK. If this hasn't been settled by the end of the year, it should run regardless, though the copyright notice referred to in the deletion discussion should be enough to keep this from the main page, as even if the image is moved to Wikipedia, it isn't free and thus can't be used on the main page. Further, if it seems unlikely at the present time that it will be settled by the end of the year, I think we should run it now.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
A Commons admin has closed the deletion discussion as "keep". That clears the final hurdle. I recommend that this be considered for the lead hook. Schwede6612:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
i have written my reasoning behind why i think dalí atomicus is in the public domain
here. it is admittedly somewhat lengthy, so i did not think it was appropriate to reproduce in full in this nomination.
dying (
talk)
04:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It is, and having now read the
2008 Commons deletion discussion (it was kept) as well as dying's reasoning, it appears that there was no copyright renewal in 1976 or thereabouts according to the Library of Congress. This seems to be the case of the Halsman estate (and MOMA) asserting a copyright that is not, in fact, valid. It's a shame that so many copyrights lapsed through failure to renew, but there you are.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
15:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
This article is
related to the Museum of Modern Art.Museum of Modern ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Museum of Modern ArtTemplate:WikiProject Museum of Modern ArtMuseum of Modern Art-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
A fact from Dalí Atomicus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that before photographer Philippe Halsman decided to photograph three cats flying through the air(pictured), surrealist artist Salvador Dalí had wanted to blow up a duck with dynamite?
Voorts and
Dying, hopefully it won't be deleted, but if so please move a copy to English Wikipedia before deleting. This image is the principal page image for this article and thus would be a fair use image. Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks @
Dying for your research into this. Your explanation makes sense, but I haven't dug into it at all. The fact that the Estate claims copyright and the MOMA recognizes that claim gives me pause. Given that the close at Commons tied this image to the unfinished photograph, I think the close rationale was incorrect, so perhaps you can share this with the closer and see if they're willing to reopen the discussion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)reply
did you know nomination
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.
Salvador Dalí jumping while three cats fly through the airDalí Atomicus (1948)
Unretouched version of Dalí Atomicus, with wires visibleDalí Atomicus, unretouched
... that before photographer Philippe Halsman decided to photograph three cats flying through the air(pictured), surrealist artist Salvador Dalí had wanted to blow up a duck with dynamite?
... a collaboration between Dalí and the photographer Phillippe [sic] Halsman, in which three cats are seen flying through the air .... "Dalí said, 'I have an idea. Let's take a duck and put some dynamite up his derriere and blow him up.' And my father said, 'Oh you can't do that. You're in America. You might get arrested,'" Irene Halsman recounted ....
Created seven days ago and nominated today, i.e. that's just on time. Neutral. Suitably referenced. Earwig is clean. The problem is that the article is a stub with hardly any prose (385 B) and a very long off the 1,500 B that is set as the minimum for DYK eligibility. Hence, short of a major expansion, this nomination will have to be rejected. The other problem is that the hook fact does not appear in the article! Schwede6600:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
apologies,
Schwede66! i've already done the research to expand the article to the appropriate length, but am still typing it up. i just wanted to nominate the article before the deadline, as i mentioned above. (i admittedly ended up spending entirely too much time researching whether halsman renewed the copyright.) i should have the article properly expanded within a day, at which point it should include the hook fact. is that alright?
dying (
talk)
01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
What a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed reading that one! Earwig appears to be down. Otherwise, the article now passes all the required checks. A minor content issue is that the two photos are described as being side-by-side, but on any of the three screens that I've checked (cellphone, laptop, big screen), they are on top of one another – please fix the caption. QPQ has been done. Hook is certainly interesting and the hook fact is referenced. The other snag is that the main photo is currently up for deletion; I suggest we park this until that issue has resolved itself as it's certainly a strong contender for a lead hook. Schwede6602:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)reply
thanks, Schwede66! i'm glad you enjoyed reading it. yes, i agree that the nomination should be put on hold due to the deletion discussion.also, thanks for pointing out the caption issue! i completely forgot about the possibility that one photo could appear above the other instead of next to it. i was trying to figure out if replacing "(left)" with "(left or top)" would be appropriate when i realized that there was actually no need to state that the photos were juxtaposed to allow for easy comparison, as this should be self-evident.i believe i've now reformatted the gallery so that it is platform independent. please let me know if this is not the case.
dying (
talk)
15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Earwig is clean. Caption is resolved.
Dying, could you please keep an eye on the deletion discussion and give me a ping when that's been resolved? Schwede6617:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Halsman took the photo in 1948, so what's a few more months? It's such an incredible photo; in my view, this should definitely be the lead hook. Hence my preference is to wait it out. Schwede6607:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
To be clear, the former version of the photo is unambiguously in the public domain (and is a featured picture on Commons). The retouched version with the brighter tones is the one to which the DR applies. This can be approved now and run as an image hook.
Vaticidalprophet16:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
i'm in no rush, and don't mind waiting it out. also, as the unretouched version has previously appeared on the main page, i think it would be nice to give the final version a chance to be featured on the main page as well.
dying (
talk)
17:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
There's a limit to how long we can or should wait at DYK. If this hasn't been settled by the end of the year, it should run regardless, though the copyright notice referred to in the deletion discussion should be enough to keep this from the main page, as even if the image is moved to Wikipedia, it isn't free and thus can't be used on the main page. Further, if it seems unlikely at the present time that it will be settled by the end of the year, I think we should run it now.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)reply
A Commons admin has closed the deletion discussion as "keep". That clears the final hurdle. I recommend that this be considered for the lead hook. Schwede6612:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)reply
i have written my reasoning behind why i think dalí atomicus is in the public domain
here. it is admittedly somewhat lengthy, so i did not think it was appropriate to reproduce in full in this nomination.
dying (
talk)
04:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)reply
It is, and having now read the
2008 Commons deletion discussion (it was kept) as well as dying's reasoning, it appears that there was no copyright renewal in 1976 or thereabouts according to the Library of Congress. This seems to be the case of the Halsman estate (and MOMA) asserting a copyright that is not, in fact, valid. It's a shame that so many copyrights lapsed through failure to renew, but there you are.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
15:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)reply