Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Great Basin Bristlecone Pine

Great Basin Bristlecone Pine

 * Reason:I took this not thinking about wikipedia but maybe for an iStockphoto upload or just a art shot. Then I looked at it and thought it was pretty damn illustrative. It is a wide-angle perspective which adds a ton of interest and I was shooting with a polarizer which enhanced the blue of the sky. The image is sharp at full res (vote on the full res, not the 800px description page). Also, this is a good example of the bristlecone pine as most of that species are more weather beaten.
 * Articles this image appears in: Juniper, Juniperus osteosperma
 * Creator:User:Fcb981


 * Support as nominator Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The caption seems a little off - It's not the Oldest tree species (a claim that would be very hard to quantify, anyway, as evolution means there's no hard-and-fast borders between species) - it's a species with the oldest living trees. Also, it would be nice if it weren't cut off at the bottom. Still, it's a good photo, and I can't bring myself to oppose outright. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose For encyclopedic value, the horizon angle kills it. It's a smashingly beautiful, fantastic art shot, but the fact that bristlecone pines are weathered and strange and often at odd angles is part of the encyclopedic value of this specimen.  Straightening it up a bit (while crazy tilting the horizon) takes away from that.  - Enuja (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the horizon is pretty near to level... Not that it looks straight. The tree was tilted at that angle from vertical, there wouldn't really be a good way to show that with the surroundings of jagged hills. Also, I'm not totally sure the horizon would need to be perfectly level for this picture of a tree, the same way it doesn't really matter if a macro horizon is level. If it was a landscape, sure, but I think it isn't that important. Just my feeling... -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose as the species is incorrect - not capable of being encyclopaedic unless it's identified. It seems certain it's not a Pinus aristata as the leaf, branching, coloration and bark are wrong. Per Ragesoss the structure is indicative of a Juniper...I'm tempted that it's a Juniperus osteosperma but am not sure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Too good for me not to support, though I agree with the concerns expressed above. It's definitely a beautiful shot, but a bit more on the artistic side than the encyclopedic side. Even so, I find it informative, useful and (my top criteria) I believe that seeing this picture would interest people in reading the article. faithless   (speak)  09:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support As per above comment Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Would prefer to see more of the base of the tree and less of the sky, but nonetheless, a quality shot. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this is a Bristlecone Pine; take a close look at the foliage, and compare to the closeup in Image:BristleConeBranch.jpg.  This looks like some kind of juniper.--ragesoss (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In all three articles, this image was used as an example of a Bristlecone (in tree, it was in the "Oldest trees" section). As a result, it's no longer in any article.  Unless and until it can be correctly identified and placed in an appropriate article, Oppose .--ragesoss (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn it, sorry guys. I should have doubled checked the species. The cheap field guide I picked up at a gas station showed the scaly bark of this tree as as the Bristlecone Pine. Actually, I'm pretty frustrated over this... I have been trying to avoid a mix-up of this kind but alas, I could have been more careful. Anyway, it looks quite like the Juniper species Peripitus mentioned above and I'm tempted to call it that but for the problem of changing the file name etc. Let me know what you think, I'd be willing to upload a fresh version with a good title and have this one deleted. I'm just not sure if this would be worth keeping this nomination or what? -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not in any article now. How could we keep the nomination?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. look at this nom of YOURS in which you changed your identification of the flower almost 4 times. Shall we delist that image? Anyway, I'll see to it that all the appropriate changes are made tonight. (In a couple of hours unfortunately.) The image will be added to the appropriate articles and it will be neat and clean. No worries. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is strange. You asked a question: " I'm just not sure if this would be worth keeping this nomination or what?" and I responded it without even opposing the image and you got angry with me? About my own image - I'll be the first one to support the delisting of this nom of mine . It is not my kind of an image, and I really do not care about keeping it as FP. You know what, it might be a good idea, I'll nominate it for delisting myself. How that?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done--Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, I'll vote Keep on that delist nom. Why? Because yours is a good image. The same reason that I nominated this image. I didn't oppose your image in the initial nomination and I believe it is a good image deserving of being a featured picture. You voted support as nominator on your initial nomination and you cannot change that fact. You can do nothing to prove that you don't hold a double standard and that is really what I care about. Anyway, vote as you will, If the tree is not the central subject god knows is someone could take a picture that illustrates anything. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak conditional Support - Conditional in that it's only valid if the species is cleared up . Weak because of that purple fringing all over the mountains farther back ... --Mad Tinman T C 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's a very good image, but that angle is very odd. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMO this very beautiful image is more about the scenery and not about the tree whatever this tree is.Sorry. Whatever--Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Image has been replaced and is now in two articles appearing above. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 06:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support - I really like the picture and it now seems to have the correct name and be in the right place. Well composed and well taken. Weak support as, although it looks very likely, I can't be sure we have exactly the correct Juniper as this is such a well weathered specimen - Peripitus (Talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - It's a great shot, but it doesn't show the whole subject; it would probably be better as a Commons FP. It also seems like we're shooting from the hip with the species identification.--ragesoss (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Opposse - Per Ragesoss--CPacker (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, full ack rageross. It's fairly pretty though, and I'd support it on commons. --Dschwen 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons is a joke. It serves a reasonably important purpose for the community but it encroaches on Wikipedia featured pictures with, IMO, distorted and wavering standards. Look, the people here, at wikipedia FPC and POTD, serve what I think of as an important purpose. They help get good images for en.wikipedia and make the encyclopedia look better for all the visitors. Commons FP serves no good purpose IMO. Save, perhaps, making it easier for people to find only the very best images to use commercially for free. Nobody outside the commons community visits commons for anything but free stock photos. Commons mission is flawed and not one I support. I will not nominate this image at commons and if nominated, I would oppose it. Look, why should en.wikipedia have to suffer having only dull and boring pictures as FPs? Why can't we show something of beauty on our main page. A main page that is for the cause of promoting knowledge. Not the mission of promoting lower wages for photographers. Just my two cents. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you think this way. wikipedia FPC and POTD, serve what I think of as an important purpose. They help get good images for en.wikipedia. As I expressed above I do not think this picture has enough encyclopedic value. And I do not see FPs as mere eye candy. --Dschwen 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)