Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orange Oak Leaf

Orange Oak Leaf


Flora, fauna, - both? "Wow" when I first saw this... wow ever since. Shot in the wild. Thanks to Shyamal for identifying this for me. This photo illustrates an otherwise uncolourful article Colours of animals. It will also illustrate the Kallima article at some point. Photo taken/posted by: Rklawton


 * Nominate and support. - Rklawton 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, do you perhaps mean this? While the camouflage is impressive, it is so impressive it is not clear from your photo what it is demonstrating. This photo is at least needed for demonstration |→ Spaully°τ 17:51, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
 * Good point. I didn't include the second photo because it doesn't illustrate the point made in the article.  To wit: Thus the leaf-like butterflies (Kallima) present various types of colour and pattern on the under side of the wings, each of which closely resembles some well-known appearance presented by a dead leaf...  However, I made sure to cross-link the two images on their respective pages.  To me, the second photo looks like just another pretty butterfly photo.  Rklawton 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose, unfortunately the image quality isn't up to FP standard - grainy, and severe compression artifacts. If a version of higher quality can be uploaded, and possibly combined with the second image into one, showing this amazing mimicry, that would be a stunning image, and I'd support. --Janke | Talk 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I've uploaded a higher resolution image and changed the DPI setting. This took care of some of the problems described.  Please note, this is not an example of mimicry.  It is an example of camouflage.  The image usefully demonstrates the Kallima's hiding abilities as noted in the Colours of animals article.  Google "Kallima" (images) and you'll see this image is the best Kallima-in-hiding photo on the 'net.  Rklawton 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See what I had in mind (more encyclopedic) in fact, I was so bold as to put this version in the Colours of animals article. With the image pair, you're intrigued with the difference in the top and bottom coloring of the flutterby. (PS: Of course, you're correct re. mimicry/camouflage.) --Janke | Talk 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change to the Colours of animals article and provided a detailed explanation in the article's talk section. Your revision misses the point of the article.  The article isn't about pretty butterflies.  It's about how well Kallima's hide.  The second photo illustrates a Kallima sticking out like a sore thumb.  On the other hand, the double image would look great in the pending Kallima article... except that I have a three-image illustration that shows the wings opening from the same angle that will serve better as an illustration of a Kallima.  Rklawton 07:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but I disagree about the pair being inappropriate for the article. The contrast between the top and bottom is what is really interesting to me - there are lots of insects camouflaging which don't show this duality in coloring. Since the dual image is now an orphan, I suggest it should be re-inserted in the article if consensus here favors it. Fair enough? --Janke | Talk 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the images here are out of context, the consensus should be sought in the article's talk page. The fact that an image is an orphan does not justify its intrusion into an article.  While you are intrigued by the duality of the butterfly's coloring, that particular intrigue has a more appropriate venue:  the pending Kallima article.  The Colours of animals illustration is meant to wow the viewer with the insect's ability to hide.  I didn't insert the Kallima reference into the article; it's the author's example of "invisibility."  The illustration I provided is meant to show the reader what the author meant by "invisible."  Viewers who want to know more about the Kallima know where to click.  When they do, they'll get a second "wow."  I sure did.  Rklawton 07:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support combined, although it should be feasible to make a larger version. I can't understand why both images aren't in the colors of animals article, it makes no sense! It's an example of an animal with two different color schemes which serve different purposes. –Joke 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article only references this particular critter's ability to hide, so the illustration only shows this critter's ability to hide, and it does it rather well. Look at it this way, if I provided an illustration of male anatomy for an article on male anatomy, would you also insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy?  Of course not; it's off the topic.  It's really that simple.  Now, an article about a Kallima would be a different story entirely.  I have different images to illustrate that article - when it's written, and believe me, the transition from leaf to butterfly is breath-taking.  Rklawton 05:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "male anatomy ... insist I provide an illustration of female anatomy" Not a valid analogue. Males and females are two entirely different creatures (ask my girlfriend... ;-) The dual image illustrates the coloring of this single butterfly perfectly, whether in a Kallima article, or an article about (camouflage) colors. BTW, the Colours of animals article is a mess (copied from E. Brit. 1911), and should be moved to Wikisource, and a new, shorter, much better article written instead. --Janke | Talk 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide. Folks who haven't read the article might miss this rather important fact.
 * As for EB 1911, check the talk page. Another editor posted that it wasn't.  Personally, I don't know.  I agree the article needs rework.  Perhaps the original editors may wish to undertake the effort.  Rklawton 05:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Please at least acknowledge that the sentence mentioning the Kallima only references its ability to hide." OK, OK, sure, no need to get your feathers all ruffled up... ;-) Some of us still would like to see the duality. And Alvinrune, I don't see the idea of your new edit - in fact, you made an error, there's a strangely mismatched or superimposed stripe in the middle. --Janke | Talk 06:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)