Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Santa Claus 1863 Harpers.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Santa Claus 1863

Reason

Historic origin of a modern cultural icon

Proposed caption

One of the earliest depictions of the modern Santa Claus by Thomas Nast, which appeared on the cover of the January 3, 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly. At this time, the image of Santa Claus had not yet merged with that of Father Christmas. This version was likely based on the Belsnickel ("Furry Nicholas"), a mythical being who visited naughty children in their sleep. The name originated from the fact that the person appeared to be a huge beast since he was covered from head to toe in fur. This image appeared as a small part of a larger illustration titled "A Christmas Furlough" in which Nast set aside his regular news and political coverage to do a Santa Claus drawing. This Santa was a man dressed up handing out gifts to Union Army soldiers.

Articles this image appears in

Santa Claus, Santa Claus in Northern American culture, Thomas Nast

Creator

Thomas Nast for Harper's Weekly

• Support as nominator howcheng {chat} 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And yes, if this is promoted, I intend to fast-track this to be POTD on December 25. :) howcheng {chat} 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. Fascinating historical image in fantastic detail --ffroth 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Surely a less beat-up copy still exists? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there's the much smaller Image:1863 harpers.jpg, but even then you can see a lot of the creases. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Would this be suitable for uploading to Wikipedia? Pstuart84 Talk 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also this. Pstuart84 Talk 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The detail in the LOC version is far better than the two you link to IMHO. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ --ffroth 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Care to explain that? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Howcheng's excessive acronymming --ffroth 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Library of Congress isn't exactly hard to work out. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
              • I read it as Local, we are not all "Americans" here _→AzaToth 10:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
              • If you read my userpage, you'll find I'm not from the US. The longest I've ever spent there was a week when I was 6 years old. The Library of Congress, regardless of where it's located, is a famous resource for knowledge, learning and media, and is mentioned on the image page. Anywho, we get the point. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support tattered edges don't detract IMO (although the crease in the middle is a little distracting); overall a good scan and an excellent find. --Malachirality (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Have tried to refurnished the image a bit,
  

  

  Reshaped
  (saved as png mostly temporary to not introduce any aditional jpeg artifacts). _→AzaToth 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would support a copy without the Harper's masthead. Oscar (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Harper's masthead contributes a significant portion of the encyclopedicity of this image. Why would you want it taken out? It's part of the image, and also part of the significance of the image. --Malachirality (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that anything it does contribute to the drawing could be described (e.g. "This appeared on the front page of Harper's Weekly"), and it takes up space that could be better used by the drawing itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar O Oscar (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a scan of the cover of Harper's Weekly. All other reasons aside, cutting off the masthead would be too much manipulation for FPC. --Malachirality (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. It would just be a crop - images are cropped all the time, and it's not as though this is being used to illustrate Harper's in any way. Just a thought. --jjron (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Oh well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree (I see the banner as an essential, uncroppable element of the image, akin to the "Time" title on a Time Man of the Year picture or the newspaper title on famous front pages). This might all be a moot point anyway, as no one else seems willing to vote on this nom. --Malachirality (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, even without the crop. This is certainly encyclopedic and famous. A great example of 19th century drawing. Oscar (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Santa Claus 1863 Harpers.png MER-C 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)