Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Delaware Bay 1639

Delaware Bay 1639

 * Reason:Nautical chart of seventeenth century Delaware Bay during its time as part of the New Netherland colony. Very high resolution; see also compressed courtesy copy at File:Delaware Bay Vinckeboons 14 courtesy copy.jpg.  Restored version of File:Delaware_Bay_Vinckeboons.jpg.
 * Articles this image appears in: New Netherland, Delaware Bay, History of Delaware, Zwaanendael Colony, Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
 * Creator:Johannes Vingboons


 * Support as conominator -- Durova  331 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as conominator --NW ( Talk ) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as conominator Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 17:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. High quality, high encyclopedic value in the three articles. I know this isn't a formal FPC requirement, but since the image text is in Dutch, and presumably it adds significant value to the image, I'd like to see a translation on the image page. For the close reader of an image, the text is integral to its meaning and interpretation, particularly where the text forms such a large and important part of the image, as here. I know this text is in old Dutch, in cursive, so it probably needs a native speaker. I'm contacting some User_nl Wikipedians, and on the presumption that the text can be translated, this can be considered a full support. Without the translation I'll switch down to a weak support. [Edit - As I indicated, if it turns out this is an unreasonable request, or one that will not be fulfilled I will drop it, and my support is not predicated on it. This is an highly important image with or without the translation] Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. My house is in the map!  71.59.123.169 (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign in to vote, and ensure you address the criteria. --jjron (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, this was me. Support per nom.  Spikebrennan (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  My my now, quite the nomination team. Here's the thing. It's only real exposeure is on the page History of Delaware. The others have higher placed, larger images. At least up the size in the Delaware Bay page. Good image though. Fix this then click on the golden phone to get my vote.  Nezzadar   ☎   04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Prominence in an article is not a requirement. What is is that the image adds to the section it is placed in, and relates well to the text it illustrates. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to more appropriate articles (i.e. now it's in its home article); this should fill your need for better use.  upstate NYer  05:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support upon a reasonably effort to find a translation (and only then). I'm also updating the caption, having done some work on New Netherland related topics.  upstate NYer  05:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Removed from New Netherland as it was essentially spamming the article. Only "home" location in the article is at New Netherland, which already has an image that does a better job than this would.  upstate NYer  06:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This is a great restoration of "a map of the "Svydt" river in "niew nederland". GerardM (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) The language is seventeenth century Dutch and it is essentially a foreign language to contemporary Dutch. The characters are different, the spelling is different.. The notion of "spamming" is disrespectful for the massive amount of work in here. Given support by demanding a translation is also very much of a similar disrespect for important historic material om this subject. GerardM (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I removed it one from article it added almost nothing to, but added to two articles that required it?  upstate NYer  06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The language used is what is at issue. This is important material, even important historic material with or without translations and it deserves respect. GerardM (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of your spamming reference. Please re-read if necessary.  upstate NYer  06:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Wadester, Gerard is a native Dutch speaker. Two previous maps by this same artist have been promoted to FP without translation. Translation is not an FPC criterion; the proposal to require it was rejected; the inability of modern native speakers to read historic manuscripts in certain languages was one of the reasons, and Gerard's attempts to decipher Vinckeboons were specifically discussed. The Vinckeboons restorations are the most time consuming and difficult we have ever produced at this project; these take 80 hours of labor. Please evaluate according to agreed criteria and discuss in a collaborative spirit. Durova  331 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what Mostlyharmless comes back with. After such pessimism regarding 19th century Japanese translations, I have a feeling a translation will be found here. I'll even settle for a "it most likely says...based on the current language". Not convinced there isn't at least some content that any native Dutch speaker can decipher. It has a lot of EV, and even more now after my edits, but the translation is key to EV. Translations may not be in criteria, but EV is subjective, and IMO, translations are essential for enough EV.  upstate NYer  06:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to think that I would like (but not require) translations of image texts where the request is both; reasonable: there are Wikipedians who can read it, doing so is not particularly time consuming (the text is limited), and is integral to the image and provides important information about what it is we are actually looking at. I am certain that the latter of these is true here, I am unsure of the former. Previous Vinckeboons images have not included such text, and have merely denoted placenames (which are themselves somewhat congruent with other maps, and useful as historical information in themselves). If I don't find anyone in the next few days, I'm going to get an old (18th C) Dutch dictionary and have a go at doing it myself - I'm in a history department where we do this kind of thing all the time. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mostly. Durova  331 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker of Dutch, I would like to give it a try. I've tried to read it and could easily make out some words. My problem though is that I can't make out the handwriting. If someone could write it down for me, I'll try to translate it for you. The sentence "vrouwen als sij bevrucht sijn in kinderen" (which I can make out) means women who are pregnant or literally: women who are fertilized with children. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a very interesting sentence to have on a nautical chart, makes me want to know what the whole block of text says even more! — raeky ( talk 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely why a translation can be so helpful! Anyway, I did my best on interpreting the the text. You can see it at Massimo Catarinella's talk page.  upstate NYer  21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some experience in paleography, but my knowledge of obsolete Dutch is nonexistent. Nevertheless, I'll say that the first half of the text on the left seems to deal with the native inhabitants of the area; the two-column list there is clearly a list of the names of Indian tribes or settlements (as they sounded to the Dutch). Deor (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't know if the proposal to make translations part of the FPC criteria was outright rejected. Looking back at it, it seems like there was more discussion than any actual conclusions, and some of the actual 'votes' of opposition were based on incorrect assumptions (like the fact that it would be required on all documents with any non-English text, which isn't true - there would be common sense exceptions). IMO, it would be worth asking the question again after summarising in more detail exactly what would be expected, and what would be excepted. Eg, when it is possible to translate but hasn't been, why shouldn't we be able to oppose on the basis that the EV could be improved by a translation (even if just approximate)? This happens all the time - people oppose images because there is room for improvement in the composition/colour balance, sharpness, etc, so why not EV too? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you've hit the nail on the head. Regardless of the outcome of that previous discussion or a further one, a reasonably argued oppose based on insufficient EV would be acceptable, as are other EV related opposes (note: I'm not making a specific comment on this image). --jjron (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprised to see that notion gaining any traction at all--particularly with long time regulars. This cartographer's work was specifically discussed in advance when the proposal was put forward.  Two native speakers have been unable to translate the caption.  Certainly translation would be useful; no one disputes that.  But everyone already knows in a general sense that this was Delaware Bay under Dutch colonial rule: does that factor really merit outright opposition after similar maps by the same cartographer have been promoted?  Do individual reviewers get to impose new criteria by personal fiat after consensus discussion fails to implement them?  Gentlemen, this is an excellent way to drive off contributors.  NuclearWarfare spent many long hours working on this restoration; it's his first nominee.  I hope this doesn't become the norm because it is not easy to recruit and train people for this work.  Durova  333 19:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did someone oppose because of this reason? I know NuclearWarfare, and know that he is better than to be significantly wounded by reasonable requests for more information. Apparently you doubt him?  upstate NYer  20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unreasonable requests are a different matter. Durova  333 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you implying this is an unreasonable request? This image has a block of text more than 150 words long. An effort to get a translation only helps the encyclopedia. What does your preference do to help the encyclopedia? Why are we WP:HERE again?  upstate NYer  02:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in old Dutch, and to that extent it's difficult. Still we now know that it talks about female cannibalism, which increases the EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. See what a reasonable effort toward translation will do for you? Precisely why I conditionally supported. The effort here has been reasonable and even though the language is old, we still got a rough idea of its content, even if the first translation "effort" wasn't even worth a try. I'm glad another Dutch speaker gave it a shot. The content turned out to be very interesting.  upstate NYer  04:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need to make a point of it; it's hard work, and I'd like to thank Massimo Cantarinella for having a go. I've put the partial translation on the image page, with appropriate caveats. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nice work. All I ask is for a reasonable effort be made to try. This now makes the map that much more interesting.  upstate NYer  15:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I strongly agree that a translation would be nice, even if only for the image page. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support First rate restoration. I also agree a translation would add to it's EV, it already has good EV but a translation would be better. — raeky ( talk 16:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It now has quite prominent placement. I also really want to know what the chart says. I have a friend who specializes in translating ancient languages, except that friend is currently in Iceland on a sabbatical. For some reason, he left his phone in a box on his desk in America when he left. So, if you can wait three months, I might be able to help, if not, well, here's to hoping that the rest of you can tell me what this means.  Nezzadar   ☎   21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)