Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Meerkat - melbourne zoo.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Meerkat

A detailed image which shows the entire animal and does not suffer (as did the ostrich photo) from blown highlights.

• Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 23:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The picture seems to be fairly free of flaws and well composed, however the meerkat is missing half it's tail. Good photo bad subject, not sure where that leaves my vote. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I think this image still suffers from the same issues as the ostrich nomination, only on a much lesser scale. So normally I'd weak support, but the missing tail might mislead someone who hasn't seen a meerkat before, so that knocks it down a notch for me. --Tewy 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose due to missing tail. Other pictures show a long tail, here all you see is a stub. Hurts enc. --Janke | Talk 06:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Poor Subject and Insufficient qualityBashesh 04:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bashesh (talk • contribs) 2006-12-20 19:43:17.
• Neutral A technically stunning image, but contrast is too high, artificial looking. Also I would have it with a bit more room to the right for composition reasons but that's minor. And can anyone point out where the long tail is? All I can see is a short tail well within the frame ending quite abruptively near the bottom of the photo. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone has said that the meerkat is missing its tail, not that the picture has cropped it out. They can't point out the tail that doesn't exist. It seems that this animal has lost its tail for whatever reason, and is therefore not ideally representative of the species. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Using sophisticated digital compositing techniques I was able to recover the lost tail. I believe this brings enc to a level where this pic must be supported. --Dschwen 13:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, ahahah. Alvesgaspar 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we use your obvious expertise to similarly 'enhance' my Tower Bridge image? Maybe you can jazz it up a bit and include the Queen on the bridge. And get rid of that 'dome'. It obviously doesn't need to be there - it just messes up the view! Thanks in advance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hah, nice MS-Paint work --froth^{T C} 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Um this edit and Image:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006 enhanced enc.jpg are just plain ridiculous and frankly I can't see why you uploaded them unless you were trying to violate WP:POINT in regards to your views on cloning --Fir0002 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Come on Fir, where is your sense of humor? --Janke | Talk 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • • That's funny? Come on we're not in primary school! A lame attempt like that stopped being funny a long time ago - I mean if it were well done it could be funny, but these were just nonsense --Fir0002 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It is sorta funny, but it is sorta WP:POINT. Both of you go to your rooms :) -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Awww you should've saved it til April.... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)]
• Support Original, with edit 1 for April Fool's Day The original works as an FP. The edit... well, Wikipedia is famous for the events on April Fool's Day. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Original - Edit 1 is just infantile. I think someone is jealous of someone else's abilities. Negative criticism doesn't equal contribution! -- Noraad 14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Really, the only (serious) criticism of the original is that the lack of a tail makes it slightly unencyclopedic. I'd say thats probably the most useful contribution to the discussion so far. Ignoring something so glaring doesn't equal contribution either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you actually, but the missing tail had already been pointed out (a useful, relevant contribution, allowing others to decide on encyclopedic nature of image) before the 'contribution' of edit 1. Also, other posts indicate a general negative tone from some, which culminated with this picture's discussion. Noraad 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe we should seek other reasons for this picture not receiving unanimous applause, other than the lack of a tail. As a matter of fact, it also happened in Commons very recently with the result of not being promoted. I think the composition is not pleasant to the eye, probably due to the animal posture, a crop too tigh and a colour palette uninteresting (a little overexposed also?). Alvesgaspar 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Also, it seems to me from all the bickering that the WP:POINT violation achieved its goal. Noclip 05:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear god! Please stop crying wolves! It was just a harmless joke. A WP:POINT violation would require it to be disruptive. What's disruptive here, apart from the ensuing bickering? Looks to me like some had their sense of humor digitally removed... ...oh wait.. or someone is just jealous of someones mad tailextension skills. --Dschwen 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support original. sign here — s d 3 1 4 1 5 13:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I love the image, but as noted above, it has the potential to mislead someone who doesn't know what a meerkat is supposed to look like. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Get a picture of one without a clipped (or bitten off) tail. --- RockMFR 19:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cut (tail). Lycaon 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MER-C (talk • contribs).