Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haeckel Batrachia.jpg

Haeckel Batrachia


This is a lithographic plate from Ernst Haeckel's 1904 Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature), showing unusual and interesting frog species; Samsara has provided a translation of the description of each frog from the opposing page. The image is found in the frog article. I scanned, edited and uploaded it.--ragesoss 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - ragesoss 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very interesting image. Which description goes with which frog in the image? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-24 03:42
 * Support, beautiful and informative. To Brian0918: labels has tiny numbers beside each frog (on the margins). An alternative to this would be great though. I'd propose cutting out each frog and sticking it crudely to the left of its text. &mdash;Pengo 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Don't do that! Almost as bad as cutting up the original... ;-) Support, by the way, beautiful example of lithography. --Janke | Talk 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (not a vote) Well I didn't cut it up, but I've gone and stuck chunky numbered labels on the frogs and added it to the description page. I've found it useful even just for my own reference. PS. The only frog species that has its own article is #2 (Hyla meridionalis) &mdash;Pengo 09:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support It is a great image, and it adds well towards the frog article. --liquidGhoul 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done folks! - Samsara contrib talk 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I sense a scheme to get the whole book featured. I can't say I'm opposed. –Joke 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely high resolution and well drawn. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear image. Classically beautiful nature litho  compliments the Frog article well.-- Dakota  ~   °  01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I like the image. sikander 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Remarkably Gothic. zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for all reasons already mentioned in favour of this picture Calderwood 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 07:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Now I haven't opposed, but I'm not convinced these pictures are encyclopedic in any modern sense. We demand a great degree of fidelity to the subject from FPs, at least in wikipedia (as opposed to commons), and these lithographs typically exaggerate as I understand them.  Also, they are common and I don't think we should necessarily promote the first couple we see: when I was writing Bladderwort last summer, I remember sorting through dozens of attractive public domain lithographs to select a couple for the article - and that was only what was available for for one genus.  Choosing one to illustrate Lithograph seems reasonable but we already have the anemones. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle with the point you are making, but the (in)fidelity issue is balanced against what these images add to articles that other available images can't provide, their historical significance, and their aesthetic power. Haeckel plates in particular are in a unique position; for much of Haeckel's taxonomy work, his descriptions are still best available and still usable by practicing scientists; exaggeration may be an issue, but not not to the extent that it compromises their encyclopedic value.  The three recent lithographs on FPC have been some of the best from Kunstformen der Natur, which was itself compiled by culling the best of images out of over a thousand of Haeckel's drawings.  The bladderwort litho in that article is attractive (and of course many of comparable quality are available for many subjects), but I think these Haeckel ones are in a different league.  My current plan is to keep gradually nominating these images until they start failing, but if a significant number of people share Veledan's concerns, of course I'll reconsider.--ragesoss 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral. While I do share some of Veledan's concerns, my neutral vote is mostly because I don't feel that the Frog lithograph adds as much as the Sea Anemone one did. I don't think we need all of Haeckel's plates as FPs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Should FPs of outer space also be limited because they all came from the same source, NASA? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-1 02:15
 * Improper analogy, we're talking here about lithographic plates not photographs. Regardless of who takes photos of "outer space" they're still going to be photos. The difference between this image and a mosaic of photographs of the relevant frogs, for example, should be obvious. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that any two photographers will photograph the same subject from the same angle with the same lighting, exposure, aperture, etc, which is not true. So, no, it is not a false analogy. Also, the images from NASA are as much artistic as painting, since the majority of images they release are not true color. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-5 06:19
 * I'm not sure what angles you think people are going to photograph celestial objects from, but my understanding is that you're not going to get very much luck, even with parallax, even at opposite sides of Earth's orbit. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You were referring to photography in general in your original reply, so that's why I included angles. While that doesn't apply to celestial objects, all of the other things I mentioned still apply. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-7 20:18
 * Yes, I know, hence the smiley at the end of my last reply. :) However, I stand by my assertion that lithographs are fundamentally different than photographs (certainly when the photograph is an attempt to accurately render real-life, rather than going for an "artistic" impression) for the purposes of my argument. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

~ Veledan • Talk 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)