Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elephant

Elephant

 * Status:Nomination suspended
 * Reason:Good EV, high quality
 * Articles in which this image appears: African elephant Currently none African Bush Elephant
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
 * Creator:Ikiwaner


 * Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually liked this a lot better when I clicked it. Nice colours and composition, very sharp. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question I think something should be said about the semi-erection - normally the penis is somewhat retracted compared to this. This individual may be aroused, may have recently mated, or possibly this could be related to musth - it was taken at about the right time of year for this. Whatever the case, it needs to be commented on in captions because this is not what a male African elephant normally looks like. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean ask the person who submitted the cause of the erection? Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notified. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only additional information I can give as the photographer is that I have not seen this elephant mating nor have there been females in the immediate surrounding. I don't know whether this is an erection. Elephants are huge animals and thus have large penisses. This elephant's penis was only slightly smaller. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This image of a group of females and youngsters was taken less than two minutes later. Did you travel a large distance between taking the two shots? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Wow about PLW's comment, but still doesn't take away from EV - may even add to it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing if there's no reference to it in the text, and at best will confuse readers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support nice -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose until a better caption can be given (see above for details). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's currently being used as a taxobox image. On the basis that over 80% of African elephants are female and males at most times do not have an erection, I removed the image as a poor representation of African elephants generally. The article does not have a gallery, so I didn't create one, otherwise it could have gone there while a better solution is found for this. To re-iterate my point: there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the image, but it needs to be properly labelled and also imo kept out of the taxobox. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a really bad practice of removing images from articles when they have been nominated for FPC and the nomination is still open. --Muhammad (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a strong argument for using an image of a male and an image of a female in the taxobox- this is generally how it is done (if possible) in higher quality articles. Is the image currently used in the taxobox of a female? If so, perhaps this one could be added as a second image? J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Female and male elephants usually live separately. That's why an image of a female and a male together would not be very representative. Adult males usually live alone. This image is thus a representative image of a male elephant. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am really confused about the unilateral decision. How is the current image any better? Females travel almost always in packs and there is no indication of that in the current image. There are other images on commons that are taken in sets showing both lone animals and in pack, an one of the former would be actually an improvement over an ambiguous image. Anyways, I've added the image to the specific species article (African Bush Elephant) because it has high EV there that other pictures don't. Nergaal (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support --Muhammad (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think it would be fair to suspend this until Ikiwaner's had a chance to comment (he hasn't edited in a month). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Suspended per absence of objection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 12h for objections; how long for the creator to respond? Nergaal (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's away, but I don't think he's dead yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this has enough votes for a promote. After all, a suspend also requires consensus :-) --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The suspension hasn't been opposed. I don't think being pushy about this when the image is placed in a self-contradicting section that's marked as lacking any references, with a caption that has no apparent basis in reliable sources, is really a good idea. All of this will hopefully be resolved when Ikiwaner returns to give some more context on the image. Currently treating this as WP:NORUSH. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My internet access is sometimes interrupted due to my work in very remote areas so it may take a little longer to answer as many of you are used in the north. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. There's one more question up there for you, when you have the time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See WT:FPC concerning the decision to close this.  Jujutacular  talk 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)