Template talk:POTD/2023-07-27

Previous discussion

This was discussed a year ago, with ThoughtIdRetired raising balance issues. Do we need to take another look? Schwede 66 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date of still photograph

It has been suggested to me by the Curator of Photographs at the RAF museum that this photograph was taken after the end of the war in Europe. The precise comment is
The photograph is in the IWM series for images taken on the continent. Its high number would suggest a date post VE Day; I would suggest 1946 rather than 1945.

I have asked the Imperial War Museum (IWM) for any comment on the date. The IWM is the source of the image on commons. I have yet to hear an answer. What would be helpful would be if they were to put more information in theh IWM online presentation of the photograph.

The significance of the date of the photograph is that the viewer should not misunderstand this to be a picture of the immediate aftermath of the bombing raids. A substantial amount of debris has been cleared away in the years since the firebombing raid. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for talking to a museum curator. The text currently says: The photograph shows part of the Eilbek district (albeit after some cleanup had taken place) after this dehousing campaign. I suggest to change that to: The photograph, possibly taken post-war, shows part of the Eilbek district after this dehousing campaign. Schwede 66 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Not long before this goes live. If there are remaining issues about balance, maybe discuss here in addition to making changes. We don't want to have a version go into full protection with a random last edit. Better to have an agreement in place, @ThoughtIdRetired and @Ravenpuff. Schwede 66 02:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 and ThoughtIdRetired: I'm happy with the blurb as it stands, at least content-wise. It is rather more lengthy than usual, but we can allow that on this occasion (IAR). Thanks — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the most recent edits, I think I just need to confirm that I am happy with the version as it stands and have nothing further planned. It is a big subject – but that is what the article is for. Thanks for the concession on length. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s now a discussion at Errors in case you want to chip in. Schwede 66 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. Currently looking for a reference to support the number of wounded in the article's lead. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]