Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Motor Cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Honda 550 Motorcycle

Original
Original
Reason
I hope people don't mind me nominating another picture, but. I really like this one and think that it depicts the subject in an attractive way. It is one of the better pan shots I have taken.
Proposed caption
A panned photograph of a Honda 550 Motorcycle being ridden.
Articles this image appears in
Motorcycle
Creator
User:Fcb981
  • Support (Self nom) Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support low noise, surprisingly sharp focus on rider, conveys the motion well. Debivort 21:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • oppose I could not find the image in Motorcycle article, but even id I could, I'm not sure how the article could benefit from the image.Besides I do not like background--Mbz1 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • How does any picture benefit any article? How does any picture benefit the encyclopedia? By giving a visual to a topic! This picture is of a motorcycle, on a road (its natural environment), going fast (shown by panning), with a rider (showing its use) this is much better than a picture of a bike propped up on a lawn. You have no problems sticking pictures with much more tenuous links to the article up for FP. As evidenced by your amber pic, which was in jurasic park. (Is that what a jurasic park looks like)??? I am tired of the petty shit you always pull, your bad faith nom of fir002's frog on commons, your note about cocaphony on your talk page. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Motorrad-67 seems to have removed it as vandalism (!). [1]thegreen J Are you green? 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, it is what happened. Well,I do not agree that the image is vandalism, but in my opinion the image has no value.--Mbz1 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)mbz1
        • Seriously mbz - you will get much more credibility if you at least try to explain seeming non sequitors, such as this image having no value. Debivort 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure, Debivort.I did a very extensive explaining here. If you just replace the word "rose" with the word "Motor Cycle" you could read my explanation, or, if you'd like you could read here in #5. Btw under "no value" I meant no encyclopedic value(in other words I do not believe the image adds any value to the article). I also would like to mention (once again)that my vote count is only one and I strongly believe I'm entitled to have my own opinion. Thanks.--Mbz1 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
            • No value? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Apparently, the edit summary was a mistake, but it is still not now used in any article. thegreen J Are you green? 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I added it back, I think its much better than the one that replaced it. : ( -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And... Motorrad again replaced it. Something needs to be worked out about the pics at motorcycle - they are way too many, and a lead image needs to be agreed upon. thegreen J Are you green? 20:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - good technical quality for a moving object. Also, that's a nice motorcycle. Speaking of which, the article is way too full of images.--Svetovid 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I rather agree with the basic reasons you've given in the nom, however probably my biggest concern is that I don't think we should be promoting an image to FP that ignores appropriate road-safety measures, i.e., jeans are not appropriately safe clothing for motorcycling (yes, you could argue quite correctly that they are commonly worn and you're demonstrating something commonly seen, but I'd still be concerned about the safety message, perhaps unless he was clearly defying all safety concerns, such as not wearing the helmet or jacket either - you could then use the photo to illustrate "Blatant stupidity" or something). The writing on the bike and helmet is a little blurred, possibly as a result of only being taken at 1/250s, but probably passable. And, to be honest, I find the fact that the bike is riding away from us a bit uncomfortable, it makes it look a bit snapshot-ish; I would much rather if he was coming towards us. A good picture, but too many issues for me. Sorry. --jjron 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hahaha, safety concerns, jeez! This isn't our job at all! What FP criterion does that violate? What about the safety concerns of nuking Nagasaki? Your other reasons are fine, but... Debivort 18:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • By featuring a picture it is not saying: "this is what we condone". I mean you are entitled to your opinion but nobody else I'v seen has voted because of "safety concerns". Look at the picture of the full body tattoo, there are obviously health issues relating to that degree of body manipulation. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Lol: please forgive me if I sound flippant jjron—but that one did make me laugh out loud! ~ Veledan • T 00:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad you guys take such a gung-ho attitude to safety - good luck to you. But I disagree Fcb, I think it is saying we condone it - I mean if it was a picture from the 50s when the attitudes were different, or a picture from a third world country with lax attitudes to safety, then OK, but this is pretty clearly a contemporary picture from a developed country. By putting it in an encyclopaedia (much less classifying it as featured, i.e., saying 'this is the best we can do'), it is saying that this is how motorcycles are (and should be) ridden. Now, on the same criteria I would oppose photos put up for FPC such as a welder who wasn't wearing appropriate eye protection, a surgeon not wearing appropriate medical garb, a driver without a seatbelt, or...well you get the message. As I originally said, the exception could be if a photograph was illustrating the opposite, i.e., a rebellious lack of safety. Personally - and I may be wrong - I think we can at least get a photo of motorcyclist wearing proper safety gear. Now Debivort, the very reason most people are supporting a so-so quality picture of the Nagasaki bombing is precisely that it is defying our usual concerns for human life and safety, i.e., why support this, when, if the same quality image was offered from one of the hundreds of nuclear bomb tests done around the world it would get roundly opposed? Pretty obvious I would have thought. It certainly is our job to ensure that contemporary images portray a subject to the best of current knowledge, and the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle. Incidentally the same basic argument applies to the tattoo picture mentioned - it is shocking because of the person's flagrant disregard for what most people would consider sensible behaviour. Now, unless I'm mistaken, this motorcycle picture was never meant to illustrate anything like that. So, although I may be a sole voice in the wilderness promoting safety, and despite your combined scorn, I will stick to my opinion. --jjron 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, you can have your opinion, but let me just clarify. An encyclopedia is not a safety manual, we have no obligation to sensor dangerous behavior. In fact, I would argue that a neutral POV would have to be accepting of many peoples disregard for safety. Look at the article on skateboarding, most of the pictures are of people preforming dangerous stunts, I suppose you will remove those. How about the article on Recreational drug use, this is a different article then Drug abuse and reading it, it does not scorn the use of drugs... and it shouldn't. We can say: "safety experts have expressed that (enter activity here) is potentially dangerous.(citation here)" but to make the very distinction between dangerous and safe is to induce personal bias. This is not a staged picture, this is a real rider of a motorcycle on a day he didn't know he would be photographed. Go out and set up a picture of a Motorcycle rider with all the safety gear in the world and it would be more slanted than this 'because' you set up the situation. In your effort to make sure we are keeping people safe you are also ensuring that we are that much more biased, that much less acurate. This I think is a far greater danger then that posed by a motorcycle rider in jeans. My view on this is unlikely to change as well. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want to go on with a long boring argument about nothing, but as I said before "the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle". See motorcycle safety clothing. This is not personal bias as you suggest, this is what the safety experts tell us. As Matt says below (oddly while disagreeing with me) he could get out and take a photo of a motorcyclist in thongs, shorts and a singlet. Yes, it happens - but we don't need to be saying this is what you should be doing (hey didn't my original vote say something like this). And you wonder why people vote: Oppose. Composition. Give a genuine reason, get pilloried (shakes his head in disbelief). --jjron 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not that "the best current knowledge says that you don't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle", it's that "the best current knowledge says that you shouldn't wear jeans while riding a motorcycle". Obviously people do underprotect themselves, and illustrating this is encyclopedic. Moreover, "Composition" is a reasonable reason to oppose because it addresses FP Criterion 1.3. Safety reasons are inappropriate reasons to oppose because they are not among the FP criteria. Simple as that. Our job as FP voters is to apply those criteria to nominations, and nothing more. Perhaps safety should be a consideration, and if so, I'd suggest you start a discussion to include it among the FP criteria. Debivort 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. Can you actually follow an argument? WOT. --jjron 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • WOT! Debivort 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support provided it gets put into an article; it is no longer in motorcycle. I don't think the safety issue is an issue at all, but for the record, the guy is at least wearing a helmet, proper boots, gloves, and full pants and jacket - a far cry from the flip-flops and shorts wearing riders I often see on the streets. Matt Deres 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is currently in the articles: Motorcycling and Honda CB550. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Incidentally Matt, not quite - these are not "proper boots" as you claim. As best I can tell from this distance the boots are work boots, not proper motorcycle boots. Lace up boots are not recommended due to potential danger of laces being caught up in the mechanisms. But hey, so what? --jjron 06:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I like the picture, technically great and it had value as an encyclopedic image —Preceding unsigned comment added by childzy (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral It's a great photo but the colorful background of leaves distracts from the subject, I'm afraid, particularly in the thumbnail view where the difference in focus is not obvious. Spebudmak 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very high quality, though the downhill slant does bother me a little. As far as "safety concerns" go, I agree entirely with Matt Deres. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support very interesting picture; very sharp rider; it does help show what a motorcycle is; Mcrawford620 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. As usual I cannot see any merit in Mbz1's arguments - In my opinion it does have value as a high quality image of a motorcyclist in motion with good panning skill on the part of the photographer, and there are very few, if any distracting elements in the background. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Motor Cycle EB.jpg MER-C 09:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)