Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Log embedded in tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Log Embedded in tree

Quite a fascinating image I thought. This log is securely embeddded in the white box, it could support my weight without any movement. This is also the fist series of images I have uploaded to Wikipedia with my new Canon 20D. --Fir0002 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose I see nothing startling or educational in these imagesDuncan.france 00:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Support 01. Self Nom. --Fir0002 22:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support the first version, it provides more global view and has better light conditions. Nice unusual picture! --Bricktop 23:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support first version. Unusual subject. First image has best light conditions and composition. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jonas Olson 14:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose What does this pic add to the article ? Ericd 16:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. And just what article are we talking about ? Sandover 19:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thats a bit of a problem. I put that question to the reference desk and although people thought that if we could find out what the term for a foreign body inside something (such as shrapnel inside someone's body) that would be a good place. But the best temporary location was to put it onto the Australian Flora page - both the log and the tree are white box. --Fir0002 22:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support - fascinating pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the pic can be added to an actually related article. Circeus 16:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really, how can this add to anything? Enochlau 23:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support It could add alot to pages discussing the damaging effects of wind or of tornadoes or something along those lines. TomStar81 07:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Solipsist suggested that, but I don't think this was as a result of a tornado, as we don't get them where I live (which is near where this photo was taken) --Fir0002 10:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well actually, I suggested it couldn't be a result of a tornado (although that was my first thought) - the dead branch has small side branches which would have been ripped off if the log had been driven through the tree. I suspect the dead branch lodged in the fork and the other tree grew round it. It is a shame the question on the reference desk didn't illicit a better answer, but it seems there may not be a term for this effect. My best guess is still inclusion (biology), although I'm not sure that is a term that is actually used, and we don't really have a page on it. Its an excellent picture, but I'm not sure it has found its natural home yet. -- Solipsist 15:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if the page and the pic are apropriate for one another, but you might consider placing it in the article Natural phenomenon. If this was the result of a tornado or microburst, or something along those lines then you can sight the picture as evidence of the damaging effect of winds, but if the tree branch was already there and the tree simply grew around it then you could sight this as an example of nature phenomenom. Its a long stretch, but I figure a long stretch is better than nothing :-) TomStar81 05:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The log looks like it was cut with a saw, and may have been placed there on purpose. Does not do a great job of illustrating any article. --Andrew 10:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, I dont think so. I can see no reason whatsoever for a tired logger of cutting a log and sitting it in the fork of a tree trunk to produce a biological curiosity which he'd probably never see happen. It was obviously cut back for either a post when the fenceline went through our property (ages ago) or it was cut as firewood. --Fir0002 08:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted BrokenSegue 14:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)