Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Harry B. Neilson

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Harry B. Neilson

edit
(
)
Image from the book
Image from the book
  • ... that in The Fox's Frolic (pictured), Harry B. Neilson depicted fox hunting in which the foxes do the hunting?
    Source: The Publishers Weekly, Volume 130 (1936), p. 753: "The fox's frolic, or, A day with the topsy turvy hunt; ill. by Harry B. Neilson ... [N. Y., Wm. Collins] A story, told in verse form, of a hunt in which the foxes are the hunters, and the hounds are their horses."
  • ALT1... that in The Fox's Frolic (pictured), Harry B. Neilson depicted hunting in which the foxes do the hunting?

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC).

  • New enough, long enough, and neutrally written. Image is interesting, and a nice change from the usual fare. It's also in the article and cited to a reliable source; AGF on the offline text. QPQ review has been done (although I think you need to follow up on that?) I have three concerns. The first is easily solved; the hook suggests at the moment that foxes were hunting foxes, whereas the scene was about foxes hunting men. Second, there's some issues with verifiability: I spot-checked the online sources, and source 12 doesn't support what it is used for, while source 14 does not seem reliable. Finally, the wording in several places comes too close to that of source 14. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, Vanamonde93. The hook simply says that the foxes do the hunting, based on the source that's quoted, "a hunt in which the foxes are the hunters". You may see a problem with the link to fox-hunting, a form of hunting in which foxes are hunted, but I see no confusion, as the words "the foxes", and please notice that word "the", must mean "the foxes involved in the hunt" and not "some foxes". If I had said that foxes were hunting men, that is not in the source relied on here, and you might well have objected to it for that reason. I have offered an Alt1 with a link to "hunting" to deal with your point, but I think it makes a good hook less punchy. I believe you are wrong about note 12, as this is the passage in the source that's being relied on: "His most famous painting, 'Mr Fox's Hunt Breakfast on Christmas Day', is actually a representation of five members of the Blankney Hunt, in Lincolnshire." All I can think is that you did not like the words "turned into foxes" being added, so I have taken them out, although it seems clear to me at least that the writer was not claiming the members of the Blankney are in fact foxes. Perhaps you are right about the source for note 14, I have found a better one, Country Life can be cited for that, too. But when you say "the wording in several places comes too close to that of source 14" I am quite mystified, as 14 was only relied on for one very short sentence, and what you must be objecting to is "The original, a large chromolithograph, was a free gift to readers with the Penny Illustrated Paper Christmas Number of December 1897", echoing "The original 1897 chromolithograph presented with the Penny Illustrated Paper Christmas Number". The word "chromolithograph" is the word for this kind of print and I see no way to avoid it. I have changed "Penny Illustrated Paper Christmas Number of December 1897" to "the Christmas issue of the Penny Illustrated Paper in December 1897". We could say "Yuletide issue" if you prefer? On the QPQ, I am indeed following up on it, but it is not the easiest I have ever found myself doing. Moonraker (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll leave you to sort out the QPQ: that was just a reminder, because I saw that you had been active after the last response to you there. My concern with source 12 is with the previous part of the sentence: "His best-known work, "Mr Fox's Hunt Breakfast on Xmas Day" (pictured), which has been widely reproduced..." This doesn't appear in the source, does it? As to close paraphrasing: see this result. Much of that is a quote, and some comes from very common phrases, but for instance "a house then set among green fields which stretched into the suburb of Claughton" is too close to "The house was pleasantly situated amid green fields which extended into the suburb of Claughton". Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That's helpful, Vanamonde93. What was not in source 12 was "has been widely reproduced", so I have moved that and added a citation for it. Now you have clarified that you meant close paraphrasing from source 1, I have made a few changes, but there is nothing I can do about the quotation or the address. See what you make of it now. Moonraker (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks good now, AGF on offline sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: @Maile: @Moonraker: Apologies for the late decision, but the accuracy and wording of this hook have been questioned at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 5 lead hook. Please could you look into the issues raised and then mark it as ready again once they're resolved. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I questioned it. I was not questioning the accuracy of the hook, just the repetition of the words "fox" and "hunting" in a hook that is only 108 characters. Perhaps it could be worded a little better. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru and Maile66, I rarely bother to nominate new articles for DYK now, because of exactly this kind of pettyfogging. In ALT1, above, I have already suggested that we could say hunting instead of fox-hunting, and indeed Vanamonde93 prefers that. It seems that Maile66 is not after all objecting to the word "depicted". The word "fox" appears in the book title, which is needed, and then again in saying what is unusual, and it is impossible to say that without using the word "foxes" again. If Maile66 thinks he or she can come up with a better hook, please let's have it suggested. Moonraker (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Would this wording work?
ALT2 ... that Harry B. Neilson's painting The Fox's Frolic (pictured) depicts foxes doing the hunting?
If we can't go with the Frolic painting, an alternative could be to use a hook based on the Hunt Breakfast picture.
Neilson's Mr Fox's Hunt Breakfast on Xmas Day (1897)
Neilson's Mr Fox's Hunt Breakfast on Xmas Day (1897)
ALT3 ... that Harry B. Neilson's illustration Mr Fox's Hunt Breakfast (pictured) was used as the cover art for the 1997 Christmas-week issue of the British magazine Country Life?
ALT4 ... that the illustrations of Harry B. Neilson (example pictured) frequently depicted animals wearing human clothes?
I'm not sure if any of these suggestions would fly, but they could be possible alternatives in case the original hooks are unsuitable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, there is nothing I can see wrong with ALT1, but thank you for trying. On ALT2, that is not the title of the painting. On ALT3, I see nothing much wrong with it, except that it's awfully long-winded, but it's not such a good image and might not get through the acceptance process. If going with that, and I hope not, I'd have chosen the fact that it was re-used after a hundred years. ALT4 does not seem to me striking at all. In the early 20th century, almost all children's illustrators showed animals in human clothes! Moonraker (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I was under the impression that Maile66 was questioning the accuracy of the hook as well as just the repetition of "fox", as they wrote "Besides which, Neilson was apparently the illustrator of the named poem, but it was written by Sir Francis Burnand" at WT:DYK. If it was just the repetition I probably wouldn't have pulled it, but when there's a suggestion that the hook may be confusing I think it's better to err on the side of caution and give it another day or two to think about rather than rush it to the main page. There is no WP:DEADLINE after all. I have no opinion one way or the other so will leave it to those here to come up with a consensus on what to do. For what it's worth, this hook was also raised at WP:ERRORS2, where it was suggested that the hook lacks context. I know not everyone at DYK likes that page though, so will not say too much about that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
But Amakuru you are capable of seeing that the word "depicted" does not say anything about the authorship of the poem. And I see that Maile66 has withdrawn that ill-conceived objection. The word "hunting" is not repeated in ALT1, and using the word "fox" twice does not kill the hook or justify pulling it. You say you "have no opinion one way or another", but you had an opinion in pulling the hook and you are maintaining that in not unpulling it. It may be that no one else will comment here and no "consensus" will be formed. So if you are going to maintain your extraordinary position, I wish to make a formal complaint about it. Where do I go to do that please? Moonraker (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moonraker: @Narutolovehinata5: @Amakuru: if there are no objections to ALT3, then let's use that. I never meant for this to be pulled and the nomination re-opened. But that often seems to be the practice at DYK. I just meant to correct the wording, and maybe put the hook in a different set until that was settled. My apologies for not being more clear. Do you think we could use ALT3 and put this back as a lead hook? Available images are adorable. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
As I proposed ALT3, I obviously can't approve that. With that said, while I personally like ALT3, the nominator doesn't seem to like it and really wants to go with the original (since-pulled) hook. Courtesy ping to the original reviewer Vanamonde93 to see if they can break the tie here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I will go with the majority, whatever breaks this logjam. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Amakuru, this was a poor call; the accuracy wasn't in question, and while Maile66 was not unjustified in raising concerns at WT:DYK, those concerns did not justify pulling this. As it happens, I still think the original is the best hook. Yes, it's slightly repetitious, but it's the most concise way to get the most interesting point about the illustration across. Without the link to fox hunting, this could just be a reference to normal fox foraging behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    As I have already said, the accuracy was questioned. Whether intentionally or not, Maile cast doubt on whether it was clear that Neilson was the artist of the picture rather than the author of the book. And sure, the word "depicted" may clarify the matter, but given the issue had been raised, and the queue was going to hit the main page very shortly, I thought it better to be safe than sorry. If the complaint had been just about repeating the word "fox" then I wouldn't have pulled it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that Harry B. Neilson created illustrations (example pictured) for a poem in which foxes ride hounds and hunt men?
Neilson's role is unambiguous, there's no repetition, and I think it's much more interesting when their quarry is specified. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, what does that mean, "And sure, the word "depicted" may clarify the matter"? That word was always there, and is clear to everyone else. I don't know why you can't be grown-up and say you are sorry for your bad judgement. I have now had a message on my talk page telling me I need to link this nomination at Template talk:Did you know. If that does indeed need to be done, it underlines all the extra trouble you are putting us to for no good purpose. Please advise. Moonraker (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say the use of "depicted" is inaccurate, it definitely is ambiguous. The assumption that the word applies only to an image is simply false; it can also apply to a description in words. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assumption here that "depicted" is ambiguous: ALT1, especially with the pictured, makes it clear that it's referring to a painting rather than literature. It could have even said "that in the painting..." and the ambiguity would have been resolved. With that said, Moonraker is there any particular reason why you don't like ALT5 or any of the suggestions other than ALT1? While I don't agree that ALT1 is ambiguous, I do agree that the repetition is sub-optimal and would have needed to be resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I just realized that The Fox's Frolic was the name of the book and not the illustrations, I sincerely apologize for this misunderstanding. With that said, my point on ALT5 stands, since ALT5 seems to be a reasonable compromise. And in any case, I don't really see what's wrong with ALT3 or ALT4, since I doubt that most of our present-day readers are even aware that animals wearing human clothes was a common theme in past works. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • First of all, @Moonraker: my apologies for opening up this can of worms. @Narutolovehinata5: @Mandarax: @Vanamonde93: ALT5 is not correct, per a source I found (mentioned at WT:DYK). This is not, repeat NOT, Moonraker's error, but something I just ran across when this conversation was still at WT:DYK. And it's linked in that thread there. PG 69: "A children's foxhunting parody, in which the foxes ride the hounds in pursuit of the "brush", which is the farmer's broom." — Maile (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile, for finding that; I had just accepted the fact in the article, cited to an offline source. Too bad, since that would've been more interesting. I struck ALT5. And thanks, Moonraker, for correcting the article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Maile66 for finding that, I have added the information and citation to the article. I hadn't come across Six Centuries of Foxhunting before. Moonraker (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Considering the issues with ALT5 (and by extension ALT1), are you people comfortable with ALTs 3 and 4? Or should new hooks be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT6 ... that one of Harry B. Neilson's illustrations (pictured) from The Fox's Frolic depicts foxes astride hounds, off to a hunt ?
I actually thought ALT2 would be OK with some corrections, like ALT6 above: — Maile (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I have already commented on ALT 2 through to ALT 4. For the avoidance of doubt, 2 (as you have agreed) is wrong, 3 moves us on to a different and in my view less interesting image which might or might not be selected as a lead, while 4 is making a feeble and uninteresting point, as almost all children's illustrators in the first half of the 20th century drew animals wearing human clothes. 5 is not supported by any of the sources, so I have had to amend the sentence that says it. 6 is no good, first because there is no source that says the foxes depicted are "off to a hunt", and second because the picture plainly shows them taking part in a hunt. Riders do not jump hedges on the way to a hunt. ALT 1 is correct, unambiguous, supported by a reliable source, and is the best on offer. The reviewer, Vanamonde93, is happy with it and also with the original hook. I just wish you and others would stop pandering to the wish of Amakuru to have a further long and time-wasting discussion which he should never have insisted on. And I see Amakuru has not yet had the courtesy to reply to my question above about whether the message on my talk page is correct that this nomination needs to be relinked at Template talk:Did you know. This again shows Amakuru in a poor light. Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I put the discussion back in the nominations page. It's not actually a requirement to put a pulled nomination back to the nominations page, but it is a common courtesy. As for ALT1, Vanamonde may like it, but remember that hooks are promoted, much like most decisions on Wikipedia, by consensus, and Vanamonde liking ALT1 but others objecting to it does not seem to be consensus to say the least. I'm aware that you really want ALT1 to run, but at the moment there are objections to it, if not on accuracy grounds then wording. And in my opinion, the concerns that the wordings used is redundant is credible. Hence why I initially tried to propose ALT2, to take care of the concerns with ALT1. Nominators don't always get their way on DYK (as perhaps many of the commenters here would understand) and it's not uncommon for ultimately promoted hooks to be ones that were objected by the nominator, but that's how consensus works. With that said, I am putting below a revised version of ALT2, to see if this can be a way to move forward: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT2a ... that in illustrations for the book The Fox's Frolic (example pictured), Harry B. Neilson depicted foxes doing the hunting?
  • Narutolovehinata5, thank you for dealing with the re-linking point. It isn't that I "really really want" ALT 1, it is just that there is nothing wrong with it, and I believe our time is being wasted. I prefer short punchy hooks, but I could live with ALT2a (that is rather odd numbering, by the way, as it is not based on ALT2) if it would end this absurdly protracted and unnecessary discussion, but unhappily I doubt that it will. I have taken the liberty of linking "hunting". Moonraker (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Doing what hunting? ALT2a makes little sense IMO when the phrase "fox hunting" is removed. Also, foxes hunt all the time, it's how they eat, how does ALT2a highlight what is different about this particular hunt? ALT6 at least manages that, although I see you've raised an objection about its accuracy in another respect. Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the source, I suggest the following:

  • ALT7: ... that Harry B. Neilson illustrated the children's book The Fox's Frolic, a parody of fox hunting where the foxes do the hunting (example pictured)? Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Or alternatively:

  • Hooks are expected to be concise and to convey at least one fact, not a mass of facts. They often refer to the title of some work or other and do not need to explain that it is a narrative poem (as here) or a pop song, or whatever, and also say who else worked on it. I happen to like ALT1, in which the words "depicted" and "hunting" are quite clear enough for the purpose of a concise hook: "depicted" is a meaningful verb, the subject of it is "hunting", and the agent is Neilson. Neilson depicted hunting, and he did it in something unidentified called "The Fox's Frolic". This is all accurate and clear enough. ALT7 and ALT6a suffer from a certain fussiness, but I see little harm in that. The words "parody of fox hunting" are simply Gatoclass's personal point of view and are not cited, so these hooks are plainly worse than ALT1, but at this point if a different hook is chosen it is likely to be worse, and I see no great harm in either. There is no point at all in this discussion running on for weeks, who is in a position to wrap it up? I have left a message for Vanamonde in the hope that he can do that. Moonraker (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The source states that the book is a fox hunting parody, so 6a and 7 conform with the source which is the important bit; if "parody" is not in the article that can simply be added. The point is that the original hook was inaccurate because the image does not actually depict a fox hunt, it depicts a "broom hunt", and I already explained why I think ALT1 doesn't work - because the reference to a fox hunt is a key detail and without it the hook lacks clarity. By adding that it's a fox hunting parody however, per the source, it's both accurate and clear, so hopefully it won't meet with any further objections. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I take back what I said about "parody of fox hunting", on checking the source found by Maile66, that does appear in it, but (as you say) it is not in the article and it would be helpful if you would add it. (As it happens, I ordered of copy of that book Six Centuries of Foxhunting a week ago and found it in my mail box last night.) But when you say "the reference to a fox hunt is a key detail", I am not aware of any DYK rule that says hooks must contain any "key details", and your judgement of what is an essential "key detail" seems very subjective. Most DYK hooks are surely about incidental matters, unlike ALT1. So could you please provide a link here to any DYK rule you have in mind? Moonraker (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to approve either of Gatoclass's options above, but the numerous citation needed tags in the bibliography section are still going to cause complaint. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 you may be right, there are people here who are looking for things to complain about in connection with this article, although it is far from clear to me why that is. But all the same if you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works you will see it does not require individual citations for all books in a list, it only calls for the publication details and adds that some ISBN numbers may be helpful, in some circumstances. With basic details, books cite themselves, so I shall now remove all the {{cn}} tags someone has mistakenly added. Moonraker (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 please see consensus at Is there a DYK rule that books listed in an article need to be referenced that no such requirement exists for DYK. I take it on good faith that you want to make sure all bases are covered, but the citations for Bibliographies are not needed. To cut to the meat of that issues, please see this paragraph by @Hawkeye7: wherein he links the WikiProject Bibliographies guidelines. Much more clear, it could not be. We are concerned about policy/process. This whole pull happened because I questioned on WT:DYK whether or not the hook could be corrected. I never suggested it be pulled, and in fact suggested it just be swapped with a hook in prep to give it time to make corrections. That I know of, I haven't had negative experiences with anybody who has posted here. But to be quite frank, what I see going on here is, at the very least, overkill on what should have been a simple correction. At the most, it looks like this editor is being targeted for reasons not clear to me. @Moonraker: I once again apologize to you for being the one whose original post opened the door to this mess. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66 and Moonraker: Okay. I know I'm probably among the more demanding editors with respect to verifiability, and in this case we do have consensus that it isn't necessary. One minor point remains, though; to accommodate Gatoclass's hooks, which are the most unambiguous, the article needs to describe the images as parodies, which it does not currently do. Moonraker, as the primary author you are in a far better position to do that than Gatoclass is. I'm happy to approve the hooks once that is taken care of. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It's rather strange to say there's consensus from that discussion that bibliographies don't need to be referenced, when Iridescent and Coffeeandcrumbs both gave clear descriptions of the long-standing rules that they do need to be referenced. See Ezra Pound#Works for an example of how this should be done. One nice link at the end, saying where the list came from and life's a breeze. It might be easier to do that here rather than continuing to argue the toss.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru:, "clear descriptions of the long-standing rules" is really stretching it. Coffeeandcrumbs is talking about why DYK should have such a rule; Iridescent explains why having citation would be best practice; neither demonstrates that it is already a requirement. The wording at WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY is ambiguous. The fundamental rule for DYK is that it needs to be policy-compliant; in this case, compliant with WP:V. Books are acceptable sources for the content within them, and are therefore acceptable sources for their existence, when they have complete publication information. Secondary sources would be ideal for determining whether the works should be listed at all; but that's more of a due weight determination that is outside the scope of a DYK review. I, personally, always use secondary sources in bibliographies; but again, I cannot impose that here, as a reviewer. Linking to the Ezra Pound FA isn't helpful. Pound is a well-known figure, for whom complete secondary bibliographies exist. That's not true for many more obscure authors. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh good grief, what utter nonsense Maile, who do you think is doing the "targeting", me or Amakuru - or perhaps both of us? Nothing has happened to Moonraker here that hasn't happened to a thousand DYK contributors before him, which is that his hook got pulled because concerns were raised to which there was no obvious solution. I was not a party to the original pull, all I've tried to do here is supply some explanation about why things happened as they did and to try and move this nomination along since. Making bad faith assumptions about the motives of contributors is just about the last thing this nomination needs right now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seem to have left the building a little here. To be clear, I have no issues with anyone and I see no evidence that Gatoclass or anyone else does either. In fact I find the article in question mostly very well-written and I think the hook about foxes doing the chasing was an interesting one. I hope that a variant of that can be promoted back. But it seems to me that if half the energy and time had been spent resolving the issues, rather than bickering over what happened when the hook was pulled (something which happens often and usually with no drama at all) then this probably would have aired long ago. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, I have no strong objection to Gatoclass's hooks, although they strike me as fussy. His ALT6a in effect asks "can you see what this picture shows". No great harm in that. To say The Fox's Frolic is "a parody" is more of an opinion than a fact, and I don't agree with it so would not have put it into the article. If Gatoclass wants to push for a hook with material he has found in a source, it would be polite and normal for him to add it. If he won't, I do not see why his hooks should be treated as better than others which have no faults. Gatoclass, if the time of a thousand DYK contributors has been wasted in just this way, then that underlines my point that there is a problem at DYK with a culture of nitpicking. You have not yet answered my question (above) about whether there is a DYK rule that says hooks must contain what you call "key details", or why a reference to "fox hunting" is a "key detail" when foxes are not being hunted. Most DYK hooks, by the way, seem to me to be about incidental matters. My suspicion, and I wait to be proved wrong, is that you are imagining a requirement we do not have for purposes of your own. Moonraker (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Moonraker: I don't think we need to have "parody" in the hook, but I do think the hook needs to include the fact that is "hooky", and not be misleading. You could use ALT7 and replace "parody" with "depiction" or equivalent. The trouble with ALT1 is that it isn't hooky; every fox in existence hunts on a regular basis. I'm still okay with the original, but Maile66 objected to that. Also, Amakuru, you really need to be working with us here; I'm not going to enforce the "every bibliography item must have a secondary source" rule on your behalf. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: I've had second thoughts and no longer object to the original hook. I think I was originally questioning it, but nominator @Moonraker: likes it. The nominator's wishes should count as much as ours. Let's have it go through like originally planned ... in a lead hook, just like it was. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, then: restoring tick for original hook, per previous review. If someone wants to question it further, then they need to follow up on their issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's been pointed out ad nauseum that the image does not depict fox hunting, it depicts a parody of fox hunting in which the "prey" is a broom. You cannot just blow off the concerns of multiple users and say "let's just run the original hook regardless because the nominator prefers it", that is not how it works. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC).

Speaking for myself I can live with this point, as the fact that foxes are doing the hunting means that it's clear it's not a textbook fox hunt. I am also not going to object any more about the bibliography, given Vanamonde93 point above. If there's no clear rule prohibiting it and the community is split on its merits then there's not much I can do about that. What I do object to, though, is that the hook gives the impression that Neilson wrote The Fox's Frolic. The word "depicted" does not make it clear that he was only the illustrator, as it is very often used in connection with authors too, and several others have made this point above. I'd be OK with something like
  • ALT8 ... that Harry B. Neilson's illustrations for The Fox's Frolic (example pictured) depict fox hunting in which the foxes do the hunting?
I Agree with Gatoclass that this can't be re-approved until there is consensus that the issues are dealt with.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I still believe that referring to it as a "fox hunt" is incorrect and that it should be referred to as a fox hunt parody per the source, but since I've apparently failed to persuade anybody on that point, and we've already spent far too long on this nomination, I'm disinclined to pursue the matter further. Other than that, Amakuru's proposed alt looks acceptable to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC).

@Vanamonde93: @Moonraker: @Maile66: @Mandarax: @Narutolovehinata5: thoughts? objections?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no objections to ALT8. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I am personally fine with ALT8 and in fact, that wording was what I more-or-less had in mind originally. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I am happy with ALT8. Moonraker (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks... looks like we finally have a consensus. Promoting to prep 3 now, which will probably come on to the main page in about 7-8 days time... (that's the first available picture slot unfortunately).  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Harry_B._Neilson&oldid=892955526"