Original Pages of the U.S. Constitution
-
Page 1 -
Page 2 -
Page 3 -
Page 4
- ( First nom and Second nom of the first page, which is currently featured.)
- Reason
- The first page was linked in relation to Nixon's resignation letter, and I thought, "why just the first page?" Featured sets seem to have come back in to the vogue recently, so I'm giving all four pages a shot at becoming one. They seem as large, clear, and important as the first. The first page would be the "lead image" and (more or less) retain its current status, but with the rest of the document along for the ride.
- Proposed caption
- The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government. The document defines the three main branches of the government: The legislative branch with a bicameral Congress, an executive branch led by the President, and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise. It also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, thereby establishing the United States' federal system of government. It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.-- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- United States Constitution
- Creator
- U.S. Government; uploaded by User:Keeleysam
- Support as nominator -- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova Charge! 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Speaking of which, per the discussion that arose on the Nixon resignation letter nom, let's start a FPC/Discussion conversation about standards for documents as featured pictures.
Spikebrennan (
talk) 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead and start it on the talk page.-- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, the nom just about covered everything I could have said... Definite support. Elucidate ( light up) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Historic material ... really important. GerardM ( talk) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I said down at the pin tumbler lock, and have said in the past whenever it's reared its ugly head, I oppose the concept of featured sets. Choose the best one, and that's the featured image, which can then link to the others (or make them a single image if suitable as with the lock) - in this case the lead image is already featured, the obvious choice having already been made. Or, if the images are all so good and high enc, then they can become individual FPs, most likely maintaining their own articles. Featured sets are just hedging your bets. --
jjron (
talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- So what if page 4 were the obvious best one? Would you support featuring a page few could identify, even though it's still part of the document whose first page most Americans could spot instantly, even if the quality of page 1 weren't up to the level of page 4? With respect to documents, I think featured sets make the most sense. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Page 1 is the obvious choice for the reasons you give, not because of quality. If page 4 was a great quality scan and page 1 cruddy, then we would assume that a better version of page 1 was available and justifiably oppose. Featured sets are a waste of time. Let me give my own hypothetical - if this becomes featured as a set, and one of the images is removed from the article, does that mean the whole set is delisted? The obvious answer has to be yes. --
jjron (
talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that for any situation when a member of a set is removed from the article, somebody will come back and replace it in the article. I think that's a moot point since anybody on the encyclopedia can fix the erroneous move. Besides, who would want to remove a page of the constitution from its own article? I understand a newbie may make the mistake and prefer to only see the page he/she has seen all his/her life (which starts the article in the infobox anyway), but somebody more experienced will come around, notice it, and fix it, that is if it gets past recent edits patrol anyway. I think sets should be used sparingly, but there are situations - such as this - where they are extremely helpful and useful. I think Fletcher's comments below sum up what I'm thinking. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen talk of image sets being nominated that contain upwards of 70 images - in fact I think we may already have one of about this size. It's certainly NOT a moot point that one or more of those will find itself out of articles. Once this is out of the bottle, we're going to see more and more of these things with less and less justification. And as I said originally, if all the images are so valuable, they will most likely maintain their own article, and be featurable as individual images. --
jjron (
talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- As Wadester explained, the first page of the Constitution alone is insufficient to maintain its own article. As for the 70+ images Dore' set, that's completely separate. I know you're afraid of slipepry slopes, but if it helps, perhaps we can require a set to show the same subject, but different views, pieces, or variations of it that would not be possible or practical to have in one image. The "subject" must be a specific thing, like a [[tumbler lock], not engraving. That's not an official requirement; no such requirements have been set fort, which makes your objection more understandable. If anyone would like to formally address the issue, be my guest. HereToHelp ( talk to me) 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen talk of image sets being nominated that contain upwards of 70 images - in fact I think we may already have one of about this size. It's certainly NOT a moot point that one or more of those will find itself out of articles. Once this is out of the bottle, we're going to see more and more of these things with less and less justification. And as I said originally, if all the images are so valuable, they will most likely maintain their own article, and be featurable as individual images. --
jjron (
talk) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I feel that for any situation when a member of a set is removed from the article, somebody will come back and replace it in the article. I think that's a moot point since anybody on the encyclopedia can fix the erroneous move. Besides, who would want to remove a page of the constitution from its own article? I understand a newbie may make the mistake and prefer to only see the page he/she has seen all his/her life (which starts the article in the infobox anyway), but somebody more experienced will come around, notice it, and fix it, that is if it gets past recent edits patrol anyway. I think sets should be used sparingly, but there are situations - such as this - where they are extremely helpful and useful. I think Fletcher's comments below sum up what I'm thinking. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Page 1 is the obvious choice for the reasons you give, not because of quality. If page 4 was a great quality scan and page 1 cruddy, then we would assume that a better version of page 1 was available and justifiably oppose. Featured sets are a waste of time. Let me give my own hypothetical - if this becomes featured as a set, and one of the images is removed from the article, does that mean the whole set is delisted? The obvious answer has to be yes. --
jjron (
talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- So what if page 4 were the obvious best one? Would you support featuring a page few could identify, even though it's still part of the document whose first page most Americans could spot instantly, even if the quality of page 1 weren't up to the level of page 4? With respect to documents, I think featured sets make the most sense. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support Perhaps the time has come to follow the Featured Topic concept and introduce the idea of a Featured Set for Featured Pictures of a related group.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It has existed for about a year, but since it has now resurfaced, I'm fine with formalizing the guidelines a little more than {{ FeaturedPictureSet}}.-- HereToHelp ( talk to me) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Featuring one page doesn't make sense. They are all at about the same quality and it's not a document without all the pages. If we keep limiting it to page 1, it's an excerpt with an arbitrary cutoff dictated by the size limitations of a page written more than 200 years ago... ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 06:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support I support limited use of Featured Sets where, as here, you have several related images that have collectively strong EV, but it would be awkward or artificial to combine them into a single image. I tend to oppose the idea for photographs, since we don't want people submitting little galleries of the same subject at different angles.
Fletcher (
talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree - this should happen rarely, but it should be allowed and saved for the rarest/important situations. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you would consider a pin tumbler lock one of the "the rarest/important situations"? -- jjron ( talk) 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree - this should happen rarely, but it should be allowed and saved for the rarest/important situations. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Promoted File:Constitution Pg1of4 AC.jpg -- Wronkiew ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)