Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green Naped Lorikeet

Green Naped Lorikeet

 * Articles in which this image appears:Rainbow Lorikeet
 * Creator:Benjamint 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator --Benjamint 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I prefer the composition of this image but what about the current FP? --Muhammad (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Different subspecies. Notice the plumage difference in the chest. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  08:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have, again, cut down the number of images in this article. I think there is probably a place for a featured image of each subspecies, but illustrating less-than-one-line entries on a list? I'm not so sure. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since these each have a distinct distribution, I don't see why they shouldn't also each have their own article - we've done this for the tigers, for instance. It would make a much stronger case for additional EV, which is currently lacking. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have 10,000 species to be getting on with before we start trying to split out subspecies. And that is assuming we have any information on this specific subspecies beyond its distribution and appearance; information on New Guinea birds is sadly lacking due to a lack of study. For the moment it is preferable to keep subspecies in the main article and split them out as and when the parent article becomes too large ad unwieldy. The EV is still high; like alternate plumages of females or seasonal plumages this shows the variation in the species. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * per Sabine's Sunbird, this image is not lacking EV in any way -- Benjamint 01:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just noticed this is the nominate race, making its inclusion arguably vital for the article. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (If the "nominate race" is the equivilent of the type species, then yes, absolutely, and this one should be in the infobox. Otherwise, however...) If this image is considered to have EV, then the same argument could be applied to any picture of a subspecies, meaning that, in an "ideal world", there would be at least 12 images in this article with a prosesize of just over 5000b- further, 11 of these 12 images would belong in the same section. As such, I'm not willing to accept that an image of the subspecies automatically has great amounts of EV for this article, just because it shows a subspecies. This particular image is illustrating all of "Green-naped Lorikeet, T. h. haematodus - southern Maluku, West Papua islands and western New Guinea." That sort of thing is the length I would expect a caption to be. If we had more on each subspecies (say, at the very least, a table like we would in a good article on a genus with only 12 members) then I would be inclined to agree with that argument. Otherwise, it is rather unsustainable. (Note that, in an ideal world, I would support FPs for all subspecies- however, at the moment, our article structure does not support it. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen a tree of life policy somewhere guiding that species pages are constructed by starting with the higher taxa and then the lower taxa. When a species page is "full" then subspecies pages can be split off. Sometimes a subspecies is well known and may have its own page, but this is for only a tiny minority of taxa at the current stage of the wiki. I might be wrong, but I guess that if someone wrote a decent article with many references (not just a Stub or Start class) on this particular subspecies of lorikeet, then it would not be merged or deleted Snowman (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that, in an ideal world, I would support FPs for all subspecies-  - Note that, in an ideal world, we'd have FP quality images of all subspecies. We don't even come close. In this world we have two images of birds with different plumages that illustrate some of the variation in the species, which is sufficiently valuable to merit inclusion. I disagree that we need to have galleries for every single iteration of what the bird can look like, but my rants against galleries in the pasts have been to no avail. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  19:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware the consensus on WP:Birds is in favour of galleries; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_29 in the archived discussions. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not making any comment about what the consensus was, I was commenting on my own opinion. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per all my comments above. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Sabine --Muhammad (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Good photograph, but I think there are grounds for failing it because its poor documentation lets it down. Please improve the image documentation by adding the location and date to the image description. Please note that there are categories for a lot of zoos on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sure that you are eager to show your own photographs, but please do not cut down galleries without good reasons. I have restored the gallery, which contains three of the subspecies in specially prepared square images. It seems to me that galleries are generally useful on bird pages. See WP:IG. Snowman (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment makes little sense; J Milburn doesn't have any photos on the page that he is "eager to show". If you believe it was me then you haven't read all of the above text thoroughly. Often a good idea to do so before commenting. Also, lack of date is a complete non-issue at FPC (unless it adds ev, e.g., illustrates seasonal plumage?), especially when the subject is a bird in captivity. I have nevertheless appended this and the location information to the page. Benjamint 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible to look up what animals many zoos keep, so the date and the zoo are important details for anyone who might want to cross reference now or in the future. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This has all prompted me to expand, clean up, reorganise the article on Rainbow Lorikeets. The picture here is now the taxobox image, as the nominate race I think it makes sense. The existing FP is in the description section where it illustrates some of the plumage differences in the species. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support based on this fact (though not the flawed reasoning above...) and the technical quality of the image. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Flawed reasoning? 0_o I suspect that I haven't explained myself properly here. When I expand articles, I look for images to go with each of the sections. With luck I can find a picture of a bird eating for the diet section, a picture with some pretty background for the habitat section, a nest for the breeding section, etc. For the description and taxonomy sections, images that exemplify differences within that species are good, be they between sexes, or seasons, age or races. They add value in these sections in showing these differences. No one is suggesting that every difference can or should be illustrated, any more than you'd expect a picture in the feeding section for every type of food being eaten. But you wouldn't suggest that an image of a bird feeding doesn't add value because you can't add lots of pictures of the bird feeding on different things. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that User Sabine's Sunbird's artwork in the article is good. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is now looking good. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Good photo, and EV is now clear. --Avenue (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)