Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black slug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Black slug

What I like about this picture is how the moistness of the slug is captured by the reflection of the sky on its surface, which also defines its texture. Secondly, the fact that the Pneumostome (breathing hole) is visible is also a plus as it piques the interest of the viewer to find out about what this curious structure is for.

• Shameless self-nomination and support. - Obli (Talk)^? 17:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support! Excellent image and high detail. It could probably use some sharpening, but that wouldn't be hard with such a large image. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-28 17:22
• Comment I agree the slug is resplendent & glorious (yuk!). But can you do anything about the blurred concrete background? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about as much blur as I could remove, anyone else is free to replace it with their own try. I personally sort of like the blur, though Obli (Talk)^? 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the original latest version--K.C. Tang 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

... so your vote will change with every new edit? ;-) Please specify... --Janke | Talk 07:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support either version, prefer second. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I would support a cropped version, top and bottom of somewhat distracting background removed. Anyone care to do it, or shall I? --Janke | Talk 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have, but I don't know which parts you consider distracting. - JPM | 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the less blurred version, or a cropped version of it. - JPM | 21:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I've added a simple top-and-bottom crop. I find the blurring less distracting but I'm not sure it's improved the composition. Oh and please add it to an article. Neither slug nor pneumostome has too many pics: it could go in either or both ~ Veledan • Talk 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell, Support crop ~ Veledan • Talk 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's going to be a crop, I'd be more comfortable with tilting it, the aspect ration is retained better that way, avoiding a panorama look (it's a slug, not a sunset, dammit :)). Obli (Talk)^? 22:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel very apologetic for changing my vote like this, but the more I think about it the less I like the manmade background. It's a superb picture of a slug but please get one of it slithering up a wet cabbage! ~ Veledan • Talk 01:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a manmade background. It's a rock. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 20:53
• Support cropped version, oppose tilted - the crop is more encyclopedic, we don't really need all that background. The slug is the focus, and in focus, too. The tilted version loses the slime!! --Janke | Talk 22:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Uninteresting except at huge size. Ugly background. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43

• Oppose only the tilted version as per Janke. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ugly background. –Joke 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with the background? It's a rock. Slugs like rocks. They don't get around too well elsewhere. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 21:43
  • I don't see what you expect from the background either. You're not going to find a slug on glass table, unless someone puts it there. And I doubt anyone really wants to touch that thing. - JPM | 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not a rock, it is a road. It is gravel in bitumen, which when I last looked, is not a natural habitat for many animals. Also, these slugs are omnivorous, so you would expect their natural habitat to be in foliage of some plant or on/in a dead animal (although most of you seem repulsed just by the slug so I can't imagine if it was surrounded in dead flesh). --liquidGhoul 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm going to wait for the photographer's word before we decide if this is a natural rock or not. Conglomerate rock looks a lot like it's artificial, but it's not. Also, notice the background in this picture includes moss - not something you'd really expect to see growing on a road. -- 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It is asphalt, although as the mud, roughness of it and the moss suggests, it is very old and part of a forest running track. One could argue that it is a natural habitat because it is very moist, slugs like that... --Obli (Talk)^? 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Funny you should mention that, I was actually going to suggest that it was possibly artificial, like a pathway or something. But the moss on it is pretty damn good evidence that it's not a road. And frankly, what with the humanization of this world, a running trail in the woods almost is a natural habitat these days. -- 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't notice this discussion until now. The background looked like old asphalt to me, like an old, worn road or something. Slugs are common enough subjects, so I think if you're going to have a featured picture of a slug, it ought to be really compelling. This one is good, but I just don't like it enough for FP. –Joke 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great shot, DOF is spot on. The background is not problematic (it's natural). As for crops or tilting... I'm still undecided. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. What's wrong with the background? It doesn't look good, it distracts from the slug itself (particularly at the size one views it in an article, when the shinyness of the slug isn't as apparent), and it's, well, ugly. It's natural, sure. But one could find, say, an even-colored rock. Or something. You're taking a picture from straight above of a very flat animal, removing any sense of depth (except at unwieldy sizes) - it looks like just a streak of black paint on a rock that looks like it's been vomited on. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, whether one could find an even-colored rock is irrelevant, the slug was on THIS rock. Second of all, the image is NOT taken straight from above as even a cursory examination of the image would indicate. Lastly, if you looked at the full size image, there's no WAY it could be mistaken for "a streak of black paint". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I absolutely agree with you! It's not taken from exactly above, but there's a reason someone did a tilted crop - it has so little depth. The slug was on THAT rock, but that's just something one has to deal with. The circumstances of the photo shouldn't affect our judgement on the final product, I have learned from looking at FPCs for a little while. And at full size, the slug doesn't look nearly as bland as a streak of paint - but the slug isn't shown in the article at full size! At any reasonable size, it's a boring image. In my opinion. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • IIRC, images are intended to be evaluated at full size, not thumbnail sized. Anyone know for certain? Also, the stated reason that the tilted crop was created was an attempt to preserve as much of the original aspect ratio as possible during a crop. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Slugtastic - one of the best pictures of slugs I've ever seen. PZ Myers would be proud. And I'm ashamed there's so much anti-slug bias on display here :-O At least give him credit for getting close enough to take this picture. Eeek. --Cyde Weys 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Luckily, they don't have fangs :) --Obli (Talk)^? 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't get it, what is wrong with slugs? They can't hurt, and I would rather pick up a slug than an Fierce Snake any day. A little bit of slime is good for anyone :) --liquidGhoul 12:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
      • People seem to "freak out" when confronted with animals that don't have bones (insects, slugs/worms, etc.) for some reason. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to clarify that slugtastic means support, in case anyone wasn't aware of that particular slugnacular. --Cyde Weys 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Alvinrune ^TALK 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You must supply a reason for opposition. --liquidGhoul 01:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Fine! ↓ Alvinrune ^TALK
    • Oppose Bad background—almost fake-like. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ugly tarmac background. chowells 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)