Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Here kitty kitty: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m copy-and-pasting too quickly |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::[[User:Charlesjsharp|Charlesjsharp]], correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? [[User:Bammesk|Bammesk]] ([[User talk:Bammesk|talk]]) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Charlesjsharp|Charlesjsharp]], correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? [[User:Bammesk|Bammesk]] ([[User talk:Bammesk|talk]]) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should ''add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article'' which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says ''picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.'' The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species [[Cat]] in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. [[Duck test|When you see an animal that looks like this]], you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping {{ping|Sca|Hamid Hassani}} also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, ''All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.'') Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black kite in flight|black kite nomination]] that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
::::I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should ''add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article'' which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says ''picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.'' The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species [[Cat]] in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. [[Duck test|When you see an animal that looks like this]], you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping {{ping|Sca|Hamid Hassani}} also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, ''All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.'') Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black kite in flight|black kite nomination]] that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. [[User:The Herald|The Herald (Benison)]] ([[User talk:The Herald|talk]]) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::: All black kites, as wild animals, look much the same. A high quality image can represent the species, either perched or flying, male or female (if you can tell the difference). Domesticated animals all look different and one image cannot represent them. Quite apart from that, this is a very ordinary image and there are hundreds of excellent cat images to choose from. Finally, we already have an FP. It is not as silly as the attempt to nominate a picture to represent 'MAN'. [[User:Charlesjsharp|Charlesjsharp]] ([[User talk:Charlesjsharp|talk]]) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's a cat. Period. -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 00:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::::It's a cat. Period. -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 00:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment.''' Note [[:File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg|existing FP]]. I'd observe also that, while we have [[:File:Eastern Grey Squirrel.jpg|FPs of ubiquitous species]], the technical standards tend to be higher, since such photographs are easier to take. [[User:Blameless|<small>blameless</small>]] 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
*'''Comment.''' Note [[:File:Cat November 2010-1a.jpg|existing FP]]. I'd observe also that, while we have [[:File:Eastern Grey Squirrel.jpg|FPs of ubiquitous species]], the technical standards tend to be higher, since such photographs are easier to take. [[User:Blameless|<small>blameless</small>]] 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:09, 14 April 2024
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2024 at 09:05:44 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Felis_catus-cat_on_snow.jpg/390px-Felis_catus-cat_on_snow.jpg)
- Reason
- High quality FP worthy picture with high EV, and a FP in various Wikis and Commons.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Cat and Carnivora
- FP category for this image
- Mammals
- Creator
- Von.grzanka on Commons
- Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose No EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- One of the lead images in a GA infobox is not encyclopedic enought? We have promoted images with even lesser exposure. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Charles. Cute kitty, but nothing special. Przepraszam. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Charles. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I am puzzled by Charles' "No EV" oppose rationale. Can Charles or others elaborate as to what characteristic(s) must a photo have to pass the EV criterion #5 in regard to the Cat article? Also, can you point to a photo in the domestic cat category (or elsewhere on the web) that meets the EV criterion (not on the technical or compositional basis, but just on the EV basis)? Thanks. Pinging @Charlesjsharp: since he does not participate here on a regular basis. Bammesk (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fails on criterion #5. Does not add significant encyclopedic value to the article and does not help readers to understand the article. Unless you have never seen a cat before. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species Cat in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. When you see an animal that looks like this, you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping @Sca and Hamid Hassani: also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.) Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your black kite nomination that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- All black kites, as wild animals, look much the same. A high quality image can represent the species, either perched or flying, male or female (if you can tell the difference). Domesticated animals all look different and one image cannot represent them. Quite apart from that, this is a very ordinary image and there are hundreds of excellent cat images to choose from. Finally, we already have an FP. It is not as silly as the attempt to nominate a picture to represent 'MAN'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's a cat. Period. -- Sca (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Charlesjsharp, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Note existing FP. I'd observe also that, while we have FPs of ubiquitous species, the technical standards tend to be higher, since such photographs are easier to take. blameless 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)