Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's "The Hunting of the Snark"
Set Candidate - Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 00:05:53
First off, I apologise for this formatting: It's hard to set up 10 plates simply and cleanly when they switch between landscape and portrait.
Right. These are the original illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, a sequel of sorts to "Jabberwocky". Full descriptions below. These have been the subject of at least some critical comment (see en:The Hunting of the Snark, for instance), since they were approved by Carroll, and he specified some aspects, such as the snark never being distinctly seen. This set is pretty much complete: I believe there may have also been a cover illustration, but I don't know if it was by Holiday, and mine lacks it. I'll try to pick that up at some later time.
| Rather long explanation of the images |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
|
1. Opening Stanza to Fit the First:
2. The crew. [Too many stanzas to quote] 3. End section of Fit the First. The Butcher has said he can only butcher beavers:
4. From Fit II: Depicts the Bellman's map, which is equally useful everywhere. 5. Fit III:
6. Arguably, opening to Fit the Fifth (The text appears in slightly different form in Fit the Fourth - where the image is printed - but the actions depicted aren't carried out until Fit the Fifth)
7. Fit the Fifth: The Butcher and Beaver hear the song of the Jub-Jub bird, and this causes the Butcher to begin a lengthy lesson to he Beaver (and strange creatures watch). Afterwards, they become friends. 8. Fit the Sixth: The Barrister's Dream. Pretty much the whole fit. The snark is in the foreground, in barrister's robe and wig - the nearest to an illustration of it in the entire set. 9. Fit the Seventh: The Banker's Fate. He is attacked by a Bandersnatch, and goes insane. Unlike normal terror, his face goes black, and his waistcoat white. 10. Fit the Eighth:
|
Info created by Henry Holiday - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, no provisions are made to feature sets on commons. As always, it would have been nice to have discussed such nominations before putting them on FPC. Lycaon (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Ummm...Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that announcement, did I miss the discussion? Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was discussed in advance, and a set has run successfully before. It's a bit late to store up your complaint for after the person has spent days cleaning up and preparing a huge set of images, and then to suddenly object when the work is done, and the nomination runs, particularly when you specifically say you saw the announcement. As the FPX template says, "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support." - I would appreciate that being done as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point me to that discussion? The previous nom is irrelevant for me as I was out of the country that time. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination, as you were linked above. You indicated you were aware of this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nonono, You know what I'm talking about, that's the statement, not the discussion :-(. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I specifically asked for how people wanted it to run, and asked for any comments. I cannot force people to comment, but you say you were aware of it, so why did you wait until after this went live? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nonono, You know what I'm talking about, that's the statement, not the discussion :-(. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination, as you were linked above. You indicated you were aware of this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can you point me to that discussion? The previous nom is irrelevant for me as I was out of the country that time. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was discussed in advance, and a set has run successfully before. It's a bit late to store up your complaint for after the person has spent days cleaning up and preparing a huge set of images, and then to suddenly object when the work is done, and the nomination runs, particularly when you specifically say you saw the announcement. As the FPX template says, "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support." - I would appreciate that being done as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that announcement, did I miss the discussion? Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well done on the restoration. And yes, Lycaon, you should have raised any concerns when Adam asked. Very bad form to wait until now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't remember you approving at that time? Bad form? Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had no problems with the set being nominated, and no suggestions to offer, seeing as the last set went so well, so I didn't see too much point in commenting. In effect, we gave our implied consent by not objecting. There is no rule that states I have to comment on a proposal, but if I am given the chance to do so, as you were, and do not, then it is bad form to object later. I trust Adam, and while his subject matter may not excite me as much as some, I appreciate the effort he puts in, and consider your actions and manner an insult to both him and his work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you might be over-reacting a little Lycaon. A petulant demand for an apology, suddenly changing your vote from support to oppose on my nomination, and no discussion at all on how we can sort this out isn't the best way to handle this (fairly trivial) matter. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I had no problems with the set being nominated, and no suggestions to offer, seeing as the last set went so well, so I didn't see too much point in commenting. In effect, we gave our implied consent by not objecting. There is no rule that states I have to comment on a proposal, but if I am given the chance to do so, as you were, and do not, then it is bad form to object later. I trust Adam, and while his subject matter may not excite me as much as some, I appreciate the effort he puts in, and consider your actions and manner an insult to both him and his work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't remember you approving at that time? Bad form? Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is an obvious support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Durova. A fine contribution to our project. Also per ShockwaveLover. Durova (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Abstain As for videos, I think the guidelines/information should be updated and approved for new formats before voting. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)- Comment agree with Daniel78. I often said that the guidelines should get updated before we nominate restorations here. In my opinion those pics here are a QI or VI, but a FP?! We don't even know how we should judge restorations. I often saw restorations here that lost a lot of details compared to the original, still many users voted with 'pro', which can't be the right way imho. So i think we have to set up guidelines otherwise it makes no sense to nominate restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to propose a sudden halt to a practice that Commons has routinely done for years. Durova (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Some are good, others are (very) plain. One is amost white, one is almost black. And trying to get so many image to be featured at once is not very fair IMHO. --Estrilda (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's a complete set: I think it gains value for being complete that it doesn't have alone, as it makes Commons a really strong resource for The Hunting of the Snark - which it wasn't before this, and wouldn't be if it wasn't complete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great work!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for closing my own nom, but I was told it'd be alright, and I didn't want to cause the extra work for anyone else, so...
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 abstain => featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)