Template:Did you know nominations/Sidetalk

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidetalk

Logo of Sidetalk
Logo of Sidetalk

Created by Bait30 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

Not long enough ... 1,300 characters and change of prose. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
...huh? I'm getting 1,600+... am I missing something? Pamzeis (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Case, DYKcheck returns 1637 prose characters. Please revisit your review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It is over 1,500 characters if we count the spaces, yes. The rules aren't clear on whether we count spaces or not ... I don't think we should. But I think I've alienated the nominator, so someone else can do this. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Case, DYKSG A1 states: "The 1500-character minimum includes letters, numbers, punctuation, and spaces."Bloom6132 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: I'm leaving this for someone else to review since I alienated the nominator by making such a botch of it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Case, you didn't alienate me! But also, don't feel pressured to continue the review if you don't want to. I'm trying to practice being patient anyways.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Restarting review: article is new and large enough. Copyvio check comes up clear. Every paragraph and section is referenced. Correct person credited. QPQ performed. For the hooks both are short enough, in article, referenced and confirmed. The image though I am unconvinced that it is too simple for copyright, and may be only suitable as fair use. Good to go with no image. But otherwise needs a check for PD-simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be willing to wait for someone to chime in on if they consider the logo to be below the threshold of originality. How I understand it, the logo is a derivative work of a standard, public-domain "walk symbol" such as File:MUTCD Ped Signal - Walk.svg. And all they did was added a rectangle and a circle to mimic a microphone. There are logos here that in my opinion have an even better claim of originality that have been denied copyright.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 13:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, the image is a very simple derivative of the public domain department of transport image. So also good to go with image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P6