Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Victoria and Merrie England

Victoria and Merrie England


Original - The sheet music to Sullivan's ballet, Victoria and Merrie England.

[Forgive the wonky formatting - I don't think anyone's nominated a PDF before, and it's not like there's any better place to nominate it...]


 * Reason:The best-reproduced (if I do say so myself) and rarest of my musical score PDFs, this is a very hard-to-find piano reduction that is the only surviving source for most of the music to Sullivan's ballet. There may be some minor tilting, but it's the best copy that people are ever likely to see.


 * Articles this image appears in: Victoria and Merrie England
 * Creator:Arthur Sullivan


 * Support as nominator Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may just be me, but I can't open it. Acrobat gives me a corrupted file message. I've tried twice. Re whether this is the right place to nominate it, well gee, I'm not too sure about that, given that we can't even view it as an image. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't view it either. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons has been acting a bit funny at times of late. Try again? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite pass the duck test for pictures, so I'd say it's ineligible (not a closure, just an opinion). On the other hand, this is by far the most useful PDF I've ever seen on Wikipedia, it appears most of them are deletable garbage. (That's one whacked bass clef). Yes, we should encourage the uploading of free music scores but it's the kind of thing that requires a new Wikimedia project. And a better TeX renderer.


 * The PDF works for me (in xpdf). MER-C 10:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The inability to view the document should be reported on the Acrobat bugzilla! -- carol (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, Metzler had downright weird bass clefs. =) I've also uploaded a few other scores [[Media:Arthur Sullivan - Festival Te Deum.pdf‎]] [[Media:Arthur Sullivan - Incidental music to King Arthur.pdf]] [[Media:Yeomen of the Guard - A Laughing Boy.pdf]] - but I didn't think they came out as well. The first two were from photocopies supplied to me by a friend (with his permission to do what I wanted with them), and the third involved a small amount of judgement on my part, as the full scores I had available were imperfect, and I knew this. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - Speedy Close Not FP material - this is a more than 100 page scan from a book - put this on Wikibooks, instead! Furthermore, this isn't even a picture in the article - just in the link section... --Janke | Talk 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wikibooks is not for this type of books.. and since its already on the commons, and works fine on my computer (Acrobat 8, Firefox 2.0.0.12). Also.. this is damn encyclopedic.. And for the no img in the article, PDFs cant be embedded atm ;)  Y zm o  talk  11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * - and that's exactly the reason I oppose. How can we get such a FP onto the front page? No way... Suggestion: take one single page, save as jpg, and nominate that - that's the only way to go, IMO. --Janke | Talk 12:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Taking the adage that "a picture is worth a thousand words," the images featured on Wikipedia:Featured pictures should illustrate a Wikipedia article in such a way as to add significantly to that article, according to the featured picture criteria." - Quote from [] Personally I don't find it "eye-catching", or feel that it is really a picture, or that it really illustrates the article it is in - as it is hidden at the very bottom of the article that it is in. My advice would be to nominate it in the Featured section of wikibooks, it would be more suited, and appreciated there. --Dave (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But it's the best copy that people are ever likely to see. *cough* Modern reprint *cough* Seriously in the age of LilyPond and Sibelius, any original music score is pretty redundant except as a reference or historical interest.  Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs  – 12:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has never been reprinted, and copies of the original are exceedingly rare. If I recall correctly - I do a lot of things with scores, and may be getting them mixed up - it was this PDF that I donated to the Sir Arthur Sullivan society, because they didn't have one. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose To be honest a black and white photocopy of a 127 page score is best off suited to wikibooks, for a Picture to be nominated it needs to be:

. --John254 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)