Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HonusWagnerCard.jpg

Honus Wagner T206 Baseball Card

 * Reason:Moving over from picture peer review. An excellent scan of a historically important baseball card.
 * Proposed caption:The T206 Honus Wagner baseball card is a rare baseball card depicting Honus Wagner, a dead-ball era baseball player who is widely considered to be one of the finest players of all time. The card was designed and issued by the American Tobacco Company from 1909 to 1911. A total of only 50 to 200 cards were ever distributed to the public, and as a result of the card's rarity and popularity, prices have soared. In 2007, a collector paid $2.8 million for one, making it the most valuable baseball card in history.
 * Articles this image appears in:T206 Honus Wagner, Honus Wagner, and others.
 * Creator:National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, uploaded by Wickethewok


 * Support (original only) as nominator Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, why not photoshop out the crack in the Mona Lisa, or perhaps the crack in the liberty bell?


 * Support original, Oppose edit. Iconic. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-11-15 19:35Z
 * Weak Support Original, Support Edit 1. I can see no problem with someone removing that big dirty splotch (and hole?) above his head, but it would sure improve the image. Change to full Support if someone does a good fix (I'd do it myself, but don't have time). --jjron 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldnt try to touch up a museum photograph of an old relic -- ⁪ffroth 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It says there are up to 50 - 200 of these. So the photo here is of a copy that is flawed; it doesn't mean they're all flawed, and presumably it wasn't flawed when it was made. The reason for the flaw is never mentioned in the nom or image description. Now if the flaw was a result of Honus Wagner burning a hole in it with his cigarette while admiring his own card or something we should leave it, otherwise it's adding no encyclopaedic value so can be repaired. The other option is we could say that there are many versions of this card out there somewhere, there must be better quality ones, so lets wait till we get a photo of one of them. --jjron 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the card's article, you'll see that there has been heavy scrutiny and criticism of cards that have been altered in order to improve them. To photoshop out the problem would only muddy the waters; this example is one that is owned by the baseball Hall of Fame and that adds some enc value as well. Only 50-200 were ever produced; only a tiny handful remain, and only one other in such good condition. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Most likely memorabilia experts in this area know each of the 50-200 cards by heart, and could easily identify each one in a lineup. I believe we would be reducing encyclopedic value by creating a photoshopped example that no expert could identify, or that they could potentially mis-identify (unless they knew it was photoshopped). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-11-16 18:22Z
 * Yeah, sure, but most likely memorabilia experts would also read the image description that tells them it's been edited and links to the original. Personally I'm more interested in the billions of people who aren't memorabilia experts and just want to see a good image. --jjron (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those people can go watch TV; wikipedia is for enc. Also whoever keeps switching to the stupid ::* notation for indenting, stop that! -- ⁪ffroth 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support original, oppose (my) edit - Enc., and a great scan. I don't think we should "fix" that hole, but uploaded a version without it for the hell of it.  --Sean 02:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support either per nom.--Mbz1 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 either per Brian0918's comments. Though I still prefer the edit if it weren't for misinformation. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you doing, don't support the edit! The card has a hole it it, it's not a fault of the photographer that we can fix up. You're changing the subject! -- ⁪ffroth 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The original card, when manufactured did not have a hole. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 06:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither did the Mona Lisa have cracks... --Dschwen 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above for jjron's great answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk • contribs) 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above for jeff dahl's great answer! -- ⁪ffroth 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose edit 1 - encyclopedic value is lost, not gained. Weak support original. Mgiganteus1 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, i was going to support the edit, but the clonebrushing has been done poorly. --Aqwis 15:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree it could be done a bit more neatly. I'd support a re-edit. --jjron (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original - I started up(or at least got someone to) this on the peer review page. Historical value is great and it's not too bad of a scan. -- NyyDave (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. Has great encyclopedic value which is lost in edit 1. H92110 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original. Notable card. Interesting history. Oppose Edit 1. The original is of an actual card in existence. The edit is not the actual card, but a picture made up one afternoon on Wikipedia.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit per SilkTork. Cacophony (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, strong oppose edit. The edited version should not be featured under any circumstances. As distracting as the hole is, removing it obliterates the history of the card in question. We might as well fix the crack in here. Matt Deres (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support original, even stronger oppose edit Matt took the words out of my mouth (except for the Liberty Bell part, but that was an excellent analogy... even though it wasn't actually an "analogy" in the strictest definition of the word... you get the point). Making the card look more perfect is unnecessary and just plain wrong. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original, the damage is part of it. It's the one owned by the hall of fame, so they obviously thought it worthy enough. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 04:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)