Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Vombatus ursinus Maria.jpg

Wombat

 * Reason:You can see everything from the claws to the buck teeth. The lighting is also nice in my opinion. Also, wombats are hilarious.
 * Articles this image appears in:Wombat, Maria Island, Common Wombat
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks rather staged actually (the wombat looks stuffed on display!), but the quality and isolation of the subject is excellent. Hilarity of subject is not a valid reason however. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Not a lot to say, good quality, great EV. Would be nice to see the tail, though.  What a cutie, I want one! ^^   Mae din \talk 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Awww :) J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good isolation and EV but the wombat does look flattened, 2D!?! --Muhammad (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Long lenses (400mm + especially) tend to have that effect. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is not easy to perceive the scale - is this a young adult? The sharp change of background does not reveal environment: can you provide more info about the location? Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a full adult. Location wise the image is geocoded. More specifically the wombat is on some dirt outside it's burrow with trees behind. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice spot. thanks. Support. Elekhh (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Hilarious animal. Ummm, EV and quality. I didn't see this nomination, hence this dif on Noodle Snacks page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great EV. However, I do agree with Elekhh, that scale is difficult to perceive.    Sophus Bie  (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adults grow to an average of 98cms and about 26kgs. Added above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per hilarity of subject, no matter what Diliff says.  upstate NYer  01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Australia appears to have a lot of cute creatures due to the FP contributors from there. :-) --Caspian blue 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you exclude me from that generalisation! ;-P &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Cuddly, although the article text makes it appear dangerous to cuddle one.  Durova  371 20:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Cuteness serves as a weapon here, IMO. Lures you in then noms your face. Diabolical. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "28 February 2008" - is that correct? Going on your previous submitted images, I think that any discrepancy between dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of images have been nominated here months or years later, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What he is getting at is that the EXIF date data on Noodle Snack's recent images has been incorrect. He's added that comment to all of NS' nominations where it is not correct. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also fixed. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has it been fixed? The dates are still different and unexplained. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to explain again. The EXIF is incorrect. I can remove it but it isn't easily editable. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It that case, I think that the "The EXIF is incorrect" should be added to the image file to reduce confusion. Snowman (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing so (and the others too). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine. That explains the difference in the dates. Snowman (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: What does Maria refer to in the file name? Snowman (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maria Island. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The file name should be descriptive, so I think it probably should be changed to "Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island.jpg" or something like that. Please consider that the files on commons and likely to be used on other language wikis. It could be misinterpreted by someone who could not read the language in the caption as saying that Maria was the name of the wombat and that it was a female one. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: looks like a wombat, but the file name could be more descriptive. Someone might think that the wombat is named Maria and think it was a female, if they do not read the image description or knew only a different language. File names are important, and perhaps there is some complacency here. Snowman (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Commons policy explicitly states that it should not be renamed in such circumstance. The name is perfectly descriptive and meets commons standards on the issue (latin binomial). Frankly it'd be a waste of time too. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all; see "Aim 3" in the renaming guidelines that you have cited; "correct misleading names into accurate ones". As I have explained above, I think that the file name is misleading as it could imply that the wombat is named Maria and that it is a female – Maria the wombat. I think that the ambiguous name of this file falls well below what I would expect for a FP for the reasons I have given.  Many people upload animals with a pet name, so to me this file name is potentially misleading and confusing. I think that it would be a useful exercise to rename the file, and that the file name should be fixed prior to possible FP status. From my observations of the FPC process I honestly think that the there is a culture of complacency with regard expediency or errors in file names and the written details in the file descriptions and details. Snowman (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Might I remind you of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? :-) FPC is about the pictures... EXIF dates and file names and the like are just minor details.  Besides, the image caption clearly says Maria is the location, and if you read up on wombats you see they are not pets, thus not likely to be named.  Fletcher (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pandas, chimps, killer whales, and sea-lions have names and they are not pets. Some people might think that the animal was in a zoo, because of the close up and that the zoo had named it Maria. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking common sense about an ambiguous name, which is nothing to do with bureaucracy in my opinion. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I realise that the commentary on images is of a high standard here; however, may I say that I think the accompanying "EXIF dates, file names, and image descriptions" are also important considerations. Good reliable well written information will help viewers on many language wikis all over the world use the images appropriately. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be misleading if it was "Vombatus ursinus my pet wombat named Maria.jpg". It isn't in it's current state; the name is entirely factual. By the way Maria Island is pronounced mə-RYE-ə not mə-REE-ə (like the name). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people who are not local probably would not know what the pronunciation of Maria is; however, thank you for the hieroglyphics on pronunciation - which I do not know how to interpret. I am not saying that the file name is outrageously misleading, but I think that it is potentially misleading because of ambiguity, and I still think that it should be fixed. This encylopedia does not list "Maria Island" on the dab page for "Maria", so no one so far has listed the island being refereed to as "Maria", so this use is probably little known through out the world. The wiki page is called "Maria Island" and that page does not say that the island is also know as "Maria". I conclude that this wikipedia to date does not recognise the abbreviation of "Maria" for "Maria Island". I anticipate that your file will be shown on many different language wikis, which I think emphasises that any ambiguity remaining in the name of a file a failure of the FTC process. Some people might think that the animal was in a zoo, because of the close up and that the zoo had named it Maria. I think that the ambiguous name of this file falls below what I would expect for a FP. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean no disrespect by this, but it seems that your expectations of FPs are out of line with the way that the FPC project has operated for many years. I don't want it to appear that we're not receptive to suggestions for improvement, but nobody has ever placed such high importance on the accuracy of EXIF data or the descriptiveness of filenames, except in extreme situations where the filename is clearly meaningless. While I do sympathise (and I personally make sure my filenames are descriptive within the bounds of a reasonable length), I do think you need to appreciate that filenames are arbitrary tags that only serve as a unique identifier, and are not intended to actually provide a reader/viewer with information. The infobox does that. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Image_use_policy item 3; "Use a clear, detailed title.". Also see Image_use_policy. Where did you get the notion that "filenames are arbitrary tags"? Snowman (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it, but see also item 1; "Use the image description page to describe an image and its copyright status". That supports my notion that the filename is not intended to describe the content - the filename is used to create a unique 'location' of the media which separates it from other media. Sure, it can help if the filename is specific and refers to the content of the media, but it is just not a valid reason to oppose IMO. The line you cite is a rule of thumb after all. Image_use_policy also supports my notion that filename should be descriptive primarily so that it is uniquely named, not because it should describe the content thoroughly as you seem to expect. Anyway, if you still feel the need to continue the discussion, perhaps we should take it to my talk page. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense - the image description is where a full description of the image can be written; however, this does not contradict the guideline that the image file name is descriptive and clear. I think that this should be discussed in a more open forum. Snowman (talk)
 * Then perhaps you should take it to the FPC talk page, because this nomination is not the appropriate forum. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that I have been mentioning what is relevant to this image. I have already found a few examples of what I see as complacency with text associated with the FPC images including two issues with this file, and I anticipate that I could collect a number of these sort of issues for discussion. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do collate examples, I'm not trying to stifle discussion. But given that it looks like you're the only one with such a fundamentalist view on filenames (at least from my POV from years of participating on FPC), it may be time to stop arguing about it on each nomination individually, and bring it to the project talk page instead. I think it's fair that if after extensive discussion there, consensus agrees with you, then you can use it as a valid reason to oppose or withhold support. But if the consensus is that the filename is not of significant importance to the encyclopaedic value of the image, then I think it's fair that you stop bringing it up as a point of contention. That's why it's best to bring it to the FPC talk page IMO. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to rename the image. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that the basic upload guidelines also advise alt text. See Image_use_policy item 8. At first inspection this basic guideline seems to be disregarded here. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to offer to rename it. OK we can discuss what to call it. Presumably we start with the binomial name. I do not generally put trinomial names except something like the African Gray Parrot. Then the place name - I usually use the native language name of the locality for the place name (English in this case) for internationalization. Perhaps, then a date or number. Not knowing the island, should any particular locality be included. Can you confirm that it is a wild one, or one in a zoo, or rehabilitation centre for the image description. This information is often (but not always ) available on a flickr, and I generally transcribe this sort of useful information onto to image description and compose an internationalised file name when uploading a flickr image to commons. I note that there is a "Anna Maria Island" in USA. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new name file to "File:Vombatus ursinus -Maria Island National Park.jpg". The EXIF date is fixed. I did not know the time of day it was photographed or I would have fixed that too. Old bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The clock was fine (I checked it when my phone was about to go flat so I still had a time reference). I can confirm that it is a wild one. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture, obvious enc. value.  Fletcher (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)