Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gogbot, Enschede, CatCopter in flight.jpg

File:Gogbot, Enschede, CatCopter in flight.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2012 at 09:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Gogbot, Enschede, CatCopter in flight.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gogbot, Enschede, CatCopter in flight.jpg

•  Info All by Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- As nominator Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral not sure for FP, but it's the first cat quadcopter I've ever seen! --PierreSelim (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a real dead cat. I dont like to support this. I missing the wow effect too. --Slick (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It is, and it died naturally. As to the wow. this work of art got worldwide media attention, so the lack of wow votes seem a little subjective. You don't like supporting dead dinosaurs on display, either, or is this just reserved for dead cats? Kleuske (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Disappointed they didn't use the orange props for the rear end too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That has it reason to know where the front of the quadrocoter is. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides, that's something to take up with the builder of the CatCopter. I can't take pictures of what isn't there. Kleuske (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The lack, as noted, gives the impression there isn't any and contributes to the issue of it blending into the background. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unesthetic. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean Unethical, i think. Kleuske (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Or anesthetic, as I feel.  Oppose -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose a good photo for documentation, but I feel like the cat and the props blend a bit with the background, and don't stand out. Tomer T (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's the first honest review sofar. Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Relatively small with low contrast to the background.--Julian H. (talk/files) 11:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment "Unethical" or "I don't like to support this" are no arguments for determining FP-worthiness, imo. Pictures of war, environmental pollution and similar things are hardly ever something you want to support, yet they definitely belong here. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Unethical" is very much a criteria to be FP or not. Yann (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Since when? Consult Ye Guidelines and tell me where the requirement is. Besides, what's unethical about either the image or the catcopter? Is an image of a pair of leather shoes unethical, too? If so, why, if not, why not? At least this cat died on its own, not helped by a butcher. Kleuske (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Wow? Yes, it shows a lot about stupid ideas. Educational value? To me, it is bordering to be out of scope, except to show said "stupid ideas". But even for that we have better images. But I think it is already a dead horse as FP. Yann (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Well, that's the best catcopter picture I've ever seen. Not aesthetic, but definitely wow! And as it tells a lot about humans, it also has some educational value. --Taraxacum (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you give one or two examples of educational value and what it tell us about humans?--G Furtado (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 1a. It's an image of a quadcopter, 1b it's work of art, showing how the concept of Art has changed since the 19th century. 2) people react very differently to skins of (say) cows or pigs, than to skins of cats, basing the difference mainly on the "Aaibaarheidsfactor", the animals (perceived) cuddlyness. Things that are no problem when you do them with pigskins are a problem when you do them with catskins, even though the pigs were deliberately killed and the cat was not. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I've no problem to reuse the skin of pigs, cats or of even humans; but this wildest way to transform a cat to a Flying squirrel hurts. BTW, I added some description and category to improve the document. Saw the other picture too. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Awesome! Would have supported if it were nominated on April 1. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The rotors of the CatCopter blend with the background in a confusing way. The background spoils the composition. -- Achird (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose A photo of an unusual thing does not necessarily mean a photo of unusual quality. This image requires so much background information that its illustrative value is almost totally lost. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Kleuske (talk)) 13:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)