Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/OdontodactylusScyllarus.jpg

Peacock Mantis Shrimp
Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 15:46:19 (UTC)
 * Reason:High EV, high quality and eye-catching
 * Articles in which this image appears:Mantis shrimp
 * FP category for this image:Animals: Crustaceans
 * Creator:Silke Baron on Flickr
 * Support as nominator -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; it's pretty, and a love the subject matter, but I can't help but feel that something like File:OdontodactylusScyllarus2.jpg is a more appropriate angle. The composition is confusing, and doesn't tell us as much about the shrimp as it would be good to know. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add that one as an Alt then if you think it meets criteria. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, I'm talking compositionally. This is a nice enough shot, but it's not the most encyclopedic. We can't even see most of the animal. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We feature portraits of other animals; wouldn't this qualify as "portrait of a mantis shrimp"? It's compositionally a portrait, not, for example, a cut-off appendage that should be in frame.  That would be a valid oppose where the problem occurs, but doesn't seem to be the case for this image.   Mae din\ talk 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, interesting- if we had, say, a longer article and there was a section discussing its antennae or something, a portrait may well be appropriate- equally, portraits would normally only have EV if we discuss the "facial features" of animals or something (eyes, beaks, patterns on the face, stuff like that). We certainly have a lot fewer featured portraits of animals than Commons has, as it's generally going to be a less encyclopedic image, I would argue. I like animal portraits (and I'd like to see more shrimp FPs- couldn't honestly tell you why) but, at the same time, EV should be our first concern. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is placed in the "Eyes" section, which this image does a bang up job of illustrating. The EV is potentially there as the species article (or genus if more appropriate) should include the ocular info.  As a straightforward portrait, the somewhat bunched up position is a drawback, which is what I think you meant by "confusing" (and unlike this less confined one, for example).  P.S. I wasn't wriggling for a support, just making sure there wasn't a misunderstanding of "portrait".   Mae din\ talk 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was actually removed from the article in which it was used at the start of this nomination, and the article which I was considering above. I'm not seeing the EV in mantis shrimp (it's just another picture of another species) and so I'm going to have to oppose at this time . J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I already had opposed... Well, I still oppose. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very eye-catching. My only concern is that the apparent ‘vivid’ setting on the camera or something done in image-editing software made it have a cut-out, artificial look to it. As long as we are sure this was not Photoshopped to make a fake composite, it is a stunningly bizarre looking image. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the alt. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lose the bloody alt. They're different pictures, used for different things. If you want to nominate the alt, do so elsewhere. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it, it's perfectly fine and there's nothing in policy against it. I didn't name this nomination "SpecficImageofaPeacockMantisShrimp.jpg", just "Peacock Mantis Shrimp" because I thought the one I nominated was the best one, but if voters like the alt better that's fine too. If I disagreed I'd just vote in oppose. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the pictures are being used for different things, they show different things and are used in different articles. Two very different pictures, they should not be nom'd together, as their respective EV has to be calculated separately. Can you not remember the last time you placed two different pictures on the same nomination like this? For God's sake, regardless of whether there is an explicit law against it, don't do it... J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not show different things, they show the same exact damn species of animal. If I was a peacock mantis shrimp maybe I could see a difference, however I'm a human being and I don't. The only differences are angle and lighting, not sure what the colors are but still, same animal. What is Wikipedia's tagline? "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Edit! A literary synonym for "change." I've already explained to you before on the M86 nom how easy it is to move stuff around, you yourself even pointed out how someone just went into the article and shifted the image I nominated for a different picture. And while on that topic according to you an image has more EV when used in the taxobox anyway, therefore by your logic it is actually the stronger one now. J Milburn, on my page I have a userbox that says I'm not an administrator and don't want to be one, these are exactly the moments why - You are an administrator and you're telling people not to adhere to a policy based on your feelings, which not only doesn't help the project, it's the exact opposite of how an administrator is supposed to behave. Instead you should be encouraging people to have better understanding of what actually is policy and what is bunk, and as an administrator who frequents FPC you should be encouraging selections of the best by allowable means like alternates and for all users to have really good reasons why they think that - that's the example you should be setting, instead you often just say weak things like "Nope, don't like where the image is placed." -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on IdLoveOne's talk page, as this is more general than just about this nom... J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Greg. -- Extra   999  (Contact me  +  contribs) 11:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)