Original - The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a bear native to the Arctic. Polar bears are the world's largest land carnivores, with most adult males weighing 300–600 kg (660–1320 lb); the adult female (pictured) are about half the size of males. A semi-aquatic marine mammal, the polar bear has adapted for life on a combination of land, sea, and ice, and is the apex predator within its range. It feeds mainly on seals, young walruses, and whales, although it will eat anything it can kill.
Reason
High quality encyclopaedic and attractive image, showing the whole of a female polar bear. Shows the polar bear in amuch greater detail than the current FP
Support as nominator — Jack · talk · 04:08, Sunday, 10 February 2008
Oppose Yes, it has much more detail than the current FP, but at the expense of the bear's natural habitat, which causes it too loose to much value and fails to distiguish it above other zoo shots. thegreen J Are you green? 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Agreed as per above, although I also agree this picture provides much more detail than the current FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengero (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. thegreenj raises a good point, though considering that in a few decades it is quite likely that most polar bears will be in zoos rather than in the wild, we might need to rethink what 'natural habitat' means. :) faithless(speak) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since its already on everybody's mind when looking at a zoo picture of a polar bear I would like to see some mention of the predicted plight of them in regards to climate change.D-rew (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to promote alarmism. Polar bears are doing just fine. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be trapped in some debate here, but I'm not saying that the caption be some sort of alarming statement. Just that climate change and how polar bears will be affected will already be on people's mind's seeing the image, and I think it is at least worth a mention.D-rew (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that a twig hanging on to its front leg, or a smudge on the glass you may have been shooting through? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Noisy with several pieces of dirt or something on the camara lense. Also, the content of the image is nothing special, and would be better off with a more interesting angle. JuliancoltonTalk 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The animal is too dirty. Royalbroil 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, say again?--Svetovid (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for unencylopedic setting (so obviously a zoo photograph) Spikebrennan (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the natural habitat, therefore UE. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per unencyclopedic habitat (There are cement sidewalks in the Arctic ice floes?) Clegs (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to oppose - Great image, but I do have to agree with the oppose comments (that the animal is not in the natural habitat). Macy's123(review me) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to sound argumentative, nor am I suggesting anyone change their mind: we're all entitled to our opinion here. However, I feel I have to address the argument of those opposing this picture because it was taken in a zoo rather than in the wild. I do not see this as a legitimate argument and, more importantly, there is precedent that zoo-photos can also be featured pictures: Image:Mexican wolf lounging.jpg and Image:Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo.jpg being the two examples that I know of. There are also other featured pictures of animals not taken in their natural habitat: Image:Day old chick black background.jpg, Image:Melanerpes-erythrocephalus-003.jpg, Image:Brachypelma edit.jpg, Image:Mouse spider.jpg and others. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to oppose (though I supported), I'm just saying that I don't see a problem with the location. Cheers, faithless(speak) 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. It's called Polar Bear at Edinburgh Zoo after all.--Svetovid (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are also quite exceptional (both in composition and technical aspects) as well as being taken in a zoo - the good points outweigh the bad. However, they're also all closeups - the only one I think it's obvious that the subject is in a zoo is the Mexican wolf. This polar bear pic, whilst illustrating a polar bear, is still a fairly average photo (not all sharp, grey lighting, the horrible rusty metal thing at bottom right), with the arguments against it compounded by also not being in its natural habitat. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not the natural habitat. FF23(talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --Dengero (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
