Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Giant Squid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have moved the side debate to the talk page to comply with the policy explained here, which says "Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself."
- Oppose, in agreement with SeizureDog's comments.
This is another image that requires information not present in the image itself to render it impressive. It's just a strange, medium-to-low quality image of a squid at first glance. It's only after you read the text and find out why it looks strange (in a block of ice) and the fact that it's 7 meters long that it seems at all impressive. I guess I'm hung up on the idea that a featured picture should be impressive on its own and not require article text to 'make' it impressive.-- moondigger 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)- Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That's fine, of course, since this is Wikipedia and not Commons. Here, images are invariably tied to articles. If you would like to judge images solely on their aesthetic appeal, Commons has an FPC process as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:25
Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That doesn't appear to be true based on looking through Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible, where the majority of the images are arresting at first sight, even if I don't know exactly what they depict at first. This particular image is undoubtedly useful to the article it adorns, but I think it lacks a visual punch that a featured picture should have. However even if we ignore these particular concerns,I still agree with SeizureDog about the lack of clarity (due to the ice) and the absence of a visual clue as to its scale. -- moondigger 22:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Many Wikipedia FP's require captions to explain what you're seeing; they wouldn't have become FPs unless people were told what was special about their content. That's fine, of course, since this is Wikipedia and not Commons. Here, images are invariably tied to articles. If you would like to judge images solely on their aesthetic appeal, Commons has an FPC process as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-08 04:25
 |
|
|
|
|
-
-
-
- Here are a few quick examples. You've already said you wouldn't support the only known photo of Chopin, no matter how important, simply for the lack of aesthetic appeal (which was true for all photos back then). I'd suggest going to Commons FPC, where your stricter criteria would be more at home. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:37
- Brian, let's pretend I never said anything in the strikethrough text. I know it really bothers you to think I would use criteria to judge an image that you don't agree with. What's left after we ignore the stuff you're objecting to is still an "oppose." -- moondigger 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Just don't selectively read the Featured Picture criteria in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:16
- Brian, we're pretending I didn't say that stuff to spare the Giant Squid discussion the same long unrelated debate that sidetracked the U-2 photo discussion. I will continue to vote for images based on my interpretation of the criteria. If you have a problem with my votes, take this matter to mediation. I'm certain I am allowed to vote based on my own interpretation of the criteria and that it's bad form on your part to continually sidetrack discussions of photos with other sample photos and circular arguments.
- That's fine. Just don't selectively read the Featured Picture criteria in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 14:16
- Brian, let's pretend I never said anything in the strikethrough text. I know it really bothers you to think I would use criteria to judge an image that you don't agree with. What's left after we ignore the stuff you're objecting to is still an "oppose." -- moondigger 12:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here are a few quick examples. You've already said you wouldn't support the only known photo of Chopin, no matter how important, simply for the lack of aesthetic appeal (which was true for all photos back then). I'd suggest going to Commons FPC, where your stricter criteria would be more at home. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 04:37
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Before you reply, please read and understand this: I understand that an image can be of immense historical or educational importance without being 'pretty.' I will support (and have supported) some such images for FP status. But when it comes to determining which "important/educational/not pretty" images I will support and which I won't, it's a subjective consideration. Again, if it were totally objective there would be no point in having votes in the first place. I hope you will accept this and move on with other Wiki work, rather than constantly questioning my votes and telling me to take my opinions elsewhere. --moondigger 15:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Given that you just got me involved in a long debate, simply to leave halfway through, I'm not going to continue down this road again. Just read the featured picture criteria occasionally to remind yourself that this isn't Commons FPC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-10 15:57
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Brian, what do you think there was left to discuss? We were saying the same things over and over, and it truly looked like you weren't even reading what I wrote half the time. -- moondigger 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
-
