Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Double entendre

Double entendre[edit]

Reason: An engraver we haven't featured yet. Interesting sexual wordplay suits the double entendre article, which previously had no illustration. Restored version of File:Let alone.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Charles Williams (caricaturist), Double entendre
Creator: Charles Williams (caricaturist)

Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a pretty awful caption: "to let" still means "to rent" in British English. Otherwise, I'm willing to support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to adjust as you consider appropriate. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really convinced of the EV in double entendre - even assuming people understand "let" (which I agree is not too hard) what on earth is "lodgins"? I'm guessing lodgings, implying he hopes she's a prostitute but this requires significant effort to make out, and in any event isn't an amazing pun. Not an easily understandable example of a double entendre for a contemporary audience. Also at thumbnail res (or even at image page res) it's not terribly easy to see the words at all, making it a poor illustration. EV is obviously there for Charles Williams (caricaturist) but I have no basis to think this a particularly outstanding work by him. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how is this even a double entendre at all? There is no double meaning in either of their statements. The double-ness is just that each is using the word in a different manner (Antanaclasis i guess). I don't think this is a double entendre - correct me if I'm wrong. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I am to be let alone" is the double entendre - it means both "I am to be left alone" and "I am to be rented". The first meaning is the straightforward meaning and the second one is risque, inappropriate meaning. Without a doubt, this is a double entendre. Awadewit (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not just, "I am to be rented", but "I am to be rented separately from the lodgings."--ragesoss (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Should this be put somewhere in the caption or image description? Seems like the picture doesn't have any EV if few can understand it. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Full disclosure: Durova consulted me when she was writing this image description since I have written FAs about the literature of this time period.) I don't think we should sell our readers short - this is a clear example of double entendre. I don't think "lodgins" is any more difficult to figure out than a word such as "nuthin". Calliopejen1 almost seems to be implying that we should illustrate the article with contemporary examples, which would exacerbate WP:RECENTISM A clear, historical example is an excellent addition to the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although the text is a little soft for liking; it might look better selectively darkened and/or sharpened.--ragesoss (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I think it's a good image for something that would be otherwise difficult to illustrate. However, a weak support, because I think it could do with an improved caption that actually explains the double entendre (i.e. the use of 'let' to mean both "rent" and "left"), and perhaps could be improved by a restoration. -Halo (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. It is a restored version; forgot to link to the original in the nom. description. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm torn about this one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complaint. Sorry, but this image and its quote are too dated. One has to look up several terms to find out what it's saying and by that point, even if there was a double-entendre hidden away, it seems more like you finished translating than reading something witty.

Promoted File:Let alone2.jpg MER-C 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]