Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-whiskered-bulbul-from-kottayam-kerala-1.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Red-whiskered-bulbul-from-kottayam-kerala-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2017 at 07:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
discussion about other photos of the bird species
  • Higher resolution does not equal higher quality. And after over 3,200 edits on English Wikipedia and 18,000 contributions to Commons I do actually understand a little about how it works. Charles (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, To make it clear, I don't have a problem in using or not using an image photographed by me. As Colin mentioned, my intention was only to improve the article in my capacity, as I have previously explained the reason for replacing the current image. Deepugn (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, your comment "Higher resolution does not equal higher quality." is in response to the link to a 0.29MP image that this 5.5MP image replaced on Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting that this image is inferior to that one, which also has an artificial magenta background? If not, would you accept that Deepugn improved Wikipedia by taking and inserting a higher quality photo than Wikipedia was currently displaying? If you think there is a better image to illustrate the Wikipedia article already on Commons, would you please indicate which one that is, and then insert it in the article. You claim to know of a better image, which would take 10s to insert into the article, yet would rather spend that time arguing and boasting about your edit count? As for QI standard, I think this is a perfectly usable photo of the bird in habitat, so once again wonder if that forum has got its values/purpose rather confused. -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respond, @Colin: to your ill-judged rant. I was not arguing or boasting. I was replying to an specific accusation of ignorance. Deepugn did not improve Wikipedia. His image is nowhere near the best image on Commons: File:Red whiskerd bulbul David Raju.jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus).jpg, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul at Porvorim.JPG, File:Red-whiskered Bulbul-web.jpg, even File:Birdpic.jpg are all better. You go ahead and choose your favourite. Charles (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, you don't answer the question because the answer is embarassing to you. Are you seriously suggestion that the previous image was superior to Deepugn's replacement? Please, answer this. I think then you will have to admit that Deepugn did improve Wikipedia. He took a better image and he improved the page with it. Now, you or anyone else may wish to spend time to find an even better image and insert that. And if you do (rather than criticising him here) then you are improving Wikipedia. But your comments here imply Deepung has done something wrong. He hasn't. He may not have been as thorough in locating the best possible image as you might wish, but this is a volunteer project and we all have a tendency to prefer our own works. As for your suggested better images, two do not show the red feathers at the bottom of the body, which I would consider a key feature, one has been oversharpened, with artefacts. And as for File:Birdpic.jpg ... you are having a joke are you not? Terrible composition, cropped tail, noisy compact-camera garbage quality. Wikipedia is about making one's own little contribution that makes it a step better. Face it: your original comments were "ill judged" and you should apologise to Deepung for making any suggestion he did not improve Wikipedia. And if you want to hold your head up as a reviewer, then you can retract your suggestion that File:Birdpic.jpg is better. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. File:Red-Whiskered Bulbul-1.jpg was better to illustrate the article than this FPC. I personally do prefer File:Birdpic.jpg to this FPC, however dreadful the camera used. As Ikan says below '"rguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul". Charles (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think you are just trolling now. Shame on you Charles. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shame on you too Colin for questioning my integrity. Charles (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the position where the photo is used, the other photo might be superior. To be clear, it's far inferior to this one as a photo; however, it is arguably more useful as a small thumbnail of a red-whiskered bulbul. But that's something best discussed at w:Talk:Red-whiskered bulbul. Here, we are judging this photo as a photo, not a Wikipedia thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan The other photo has an artificial magenta background, which is never desirable, doesn't show the feet, nor the tail nor is the red patch at its bottom clearly visible. On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of "thumbnail" size is obsolete. I think that for many of our animal photos, there is too much concern on eliminating the background. There are times where that is a desirable style of photography, but also times where "animal in habitat" is absolutely appropriate and to be appreciated in its own different way. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that "animal in habitat" is a very useful type of photo. When "thumbnail size" becomes obsolete, maybe the category of "Valued Images" should be eliminated. If not, it should certainly be drastically reimagined, because I've been judging photos at VIC almost solely on the basis of what is most useful at thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at thumbnail size only works if there is only one image in the category. If the VI scope takes you to a gallery, you should always check the category as not all competing images will be in the gallery. Charles (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look at all relevant images in the category. I guess that's the same as the gallery? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Too many distracting elements for viewer to easily focus on the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, why don't you think this is even close to QI? I think this would pass QIC unless it got into CR and too many people voted that the background was too distracting. The bird is clear, even where not fully sharp, from the tip of its crown to the tip of its tail. I don't feel impelled to vote for this as an FP, and I would say it is not an FP, but I only mildly  Oppose and don't really understand why you have such a very low opinion of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not completely in focus at full size, no. But on the other hand, the tail is a lot clearer than in many QI photos. I would have agreed if you had said it's not at FP level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is a very nice photo of the bird, but since we have so many highly skilled bird photographers here, the bar for an FP bird photo is rather high. This is not quite up to that level. However, instead of bickering about if this is a QI or not here, I've nominated it for QI and we'll see how that goes on that page instead. --cart-Talk 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 17:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Red-whiskered-bulbul-from-kottayam-kerala-1.jpg&oldid=236647279"