Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Recreational fishing

Recreational fishing

 * Reason:High EV, good quality
 * Articles in which this image appears: Recreational fishing, Lake Merced
 * Creator:mbz1


 * Comment Some of you might say that because the image shows very little of the lake it has low EV. Let me please prove to you that this image contains almost complete information about the lake:
 * 1) The image was taken on a foggy morning. Early morning fog are very usual occurrence at the Lake.
 * 2) The fishing pier that is depicted at the image shows that active recreational fishing at the lake is encouraged.
 * 3) The fisherman is an Asian American. Asian Americans are the most common fishermen at the lake.
 * 4) The image depicts few birds and kayaks . They are a very usual sight at the lake in any weather.
 * 5) Cane that is seen at the image is growing up all over the lake.
 * 6) Of course the presence of the fisherman with few Fishing rods is a good indicator that fish is common at the lake, but to tell you the truth I've never seen a fisherman catching a fish :) I did see how Double-crested Cormorant did Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg.
 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. I have to admit, I'm still not convinced of the EV of this image. It might typically be foggy, but the dark side of the moon is typically very dark too, but that doesn't mean we should feature a photo of a black rectangle. ;-) And Asian Americans might be the most common fishermen at this lake, but it's not evident that he is actually Asian, and if you have to explain this sort of thing in an image caption then it's not really telling us as much as you imply that it is. It's an aesthetic and interesting image, but just doesn't tell us as much about the lake as a FP could or should IMO. Having said that, the EV is better in recreational fishing, although I think that a photo could show fishing better without a silhouette. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the image and comment on it. I only cannot understand why the vote was only "weak oppose" :) I am not sure I agree with your statement about that it is not evident that the man is an Asian American. Before I uploaded the image to Wikipedia I submitted it to a stock photo site. It was rejected. Guess why, they wanted to have a model release :) To tell you the truth that image reminded me a story about a student, who was taking geography exam. The question was Sakhalin. The student was not ready for the exam, but in the last moment she remembered a song about Sakhalin. She started to recite the song : "What, could I tell you about Sakhalin? The weather on the island is great." Professor said: So, what could you tell me about Sakhalin? The student responded: It is an island. Then she continued with the song: "The surf makes my clothing salty, and I live, where the Sun rises." Once again professor stopped her, and asked:So where Sakhalin is located? The student responded: It is located at far East. Then she continued with the song: "It takes some time for the mail to reach our harbor" Professor asked: Please name an industry in Sakhalin. The student responded: They have a harbor there. She continued with the song: "Sometimes I come to the rocky cliffs at Strait of La Pérouse. Professor said: You even know the name of the strait! You deserve an "A", good job! Sorry for the long story, but I did use it to prove that my image has EV. :) In any case I'd like to thank you one more time for commenting on the image. I am always trilled, when you do, and I mean it. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose- almost all the elements of the picture are either blurred or dark which I see unjustified since "normal" images can be produced (e.g. the one in the infobox of Lake Merced). (Not part of the oppose argument: The Asian person could also be native American/Sudamerican since they also can have this shape of the face)  franklin   05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not blurred, they are foggy :) This particular image could not have been any brighter because the sun would have been overexposed then. It is a mood image, which shows the mood of an early morning at the lake. IMO infobox image is kind of boring. Anyway thanks for your review, Franklin. I understand and have absolutely no problems with your and Diliff oppose reasons, while still believing that the image is of a good quality and EV. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the nomination. It is refreshing to see a different approach at FPC. I agree the image does provide a lot of information about the lake. I think what is missing is an element which would make it clearly unique to this lake, as probably there are many lakes which are foggy and good for fishing. The design of the balustrade unfortunately doesn't appear to be unique either. However, I think it might have sufficient EV for recreational fishing, as it illustrates a typical fishing scene on a foggy morning. I also think you were a bit shy to place your image towards the bottom of the article, so I moved it up a bit :) Elekhh (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I am glad you understood the image! I've changed the subject as you suggested, and I hope that maybe now Diliff will reconsider his weak oppose to weak support because he also said that fishing is a better subject for this nomination :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support While the EV for Lake Merced is low, it's pretty good EV for recreational fishing. Because it's recreation, the mood or emotional aspect is more relevant than it might otherwise be (why do we do what we do?).  And the picture captures a very relaxed, peaceful atmosphere.  It's surely not the most educational picture possible, but then, not all human experience takes place under "encyclopedic" lighting conditions.  Fletcher (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if the image is now about recreational fishing it is even more uncalled the mist, the darkness, the blown-up sun (not for being that way but for being that way in a dark picture, distracting from the fisherman). For Lake Merced I could assume being misty is tipical (although misty doesn't imply that everything has to be dark) but for fishing... I believe that it is dark because the sun is there inside the frame and is there for two reasons, either it is a mistake (hopefully it isn't) or it is there on purpose. But then the picture is more about the interaction sun-fisherman-mist. That's why Mbz1 calls it a mood image. But a mood image compromises the EV. One can't see what the fisherman wears, what he brought: is he really wearing gloves? Do we need to bring gloves? Is that a cloth over the fence or just a newspaper? I don't know. How many questions can remain unanswered for the choice of everything being dark.  franklin   06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Franklin, you reminded me a story about one elderly woman. She got a strong pain in her lower back. The pain was so strong, she could not go to a hospital, and asked a doctor to come to her house. The doctor was very young, it probably was her very first house call. The doctor examined the elderly woman, and asked: "Aren't you in labor by any chance?" The woman responded: "Oh, no, dear, I would have never allowed myself to go to labor by a chance." I remembered the story because you said you hoped I've got the sun into my image by mistake. I would have never allowed myself to get the sun into my image by mistake, I assure you. The image is not about fisherman, the image is about fishing, and the atmosphere of fishing. It is not important what fisherman wears, what he brought and so on. It is the atmosphere that made the scene somehow special to me. The fog that made the shapes of trees, birds and kayaks softer, the sun, the sun glitter in the lake, the birds... Having said this, I do realize that everybody has a different taste, and I thank you for taking time to comment on the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice that I said "hopefully it isn't": hopefully it is not by mistake. And then I continued assuming the other possibility.  franklin   16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Franklin, please do not get upset with my story and me. I just thought it was funny that's it. It also reminded me that when I nominated this image of mine File:Foggy sunset with Brown Pelicans.jpg on Commons, one user said that he wished the sun were not the sun, but a lens flare :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should feature many images like this, but I don't rule them out. Like I said, the mood actually contributes to EV; it explains why (some) people likely enjoy fishing.  Note that we have separate articles for fishing techniques and fishing tackle, among many others, where more technical images are appropriate.  This image is a good illustration of the recreational aspect. And contre-jour is an established photographic technique so I don't think it makes sense to complain it's too dark.  The question is, is the technique effective, and I think it works well here, placing emphasis on the man and fishing rod.  The missing information is not all that important: what he's wearing would depend on the weather and location; what is draped over the rail seems trivial.  Oddly, besides a drawing, the article has no other images of someone actually fishing.  Fletcher (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the image is useful in the contre-jour article. (By the way, thank you, I didn't know that term) Another thing is that contre-jour doesn't imply that things should be dark-dark, filling flash could be used. In this one it wasn't, at least not the one in the camera. In general not all techniques are suited for encyclopedic use in subjects outside of the technique it self. It is true that the article needs more suited images and this one seems better than the ones that were there. I expected to see Hemingway there but he is not even mentioned.  franklin   16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose EV is compromised due to the lightning. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per previous comments. It well illustrates hard to capture attributes of recreational fishing such as calm or solitude. I also find it does a good job in "making the viewer want to know more" per FP criteria. Elekhh (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The image contains the silhouette of a fisher with a rod in a murky brown fog, apparently fishing from a pier among weeds in a lake. It may have merits in some technical areas, or viewed from a certain aesthetic. But it doesn't have merits as an image representative of recreational fishing. The opinion above says this "well illustrates hard to capture attributes of recreational fishing such as calm or solitude". I think viewers are more like to react to it as somewhat suffocating and depressive. There are many aspects to  recreational fishing, and this picture captures practically none of them. It might be a good image for an article on depression, with a caption something like "The twilight of hope". I am concerned that if this picture becomes a featured picture, then that status might be used to force its use onto key fishing articles as the lead picture. There have already been attempts to push this picture as the lead image on angling and recreational fishing. In both cases, it is quite inappropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody tried to push anything. Yes I added the image to angling. It was removed. Did I say anything else about the image? The only thing that is inappropriate here is the language you have chosen to use.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the language I have chosen to use is inappropriate, then please explain why it is inappropriate. If "nobody tried to push anything", then please explain these diffs:, , , , --Epipelagic (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I added image to angling and to Recreational fishing at the same time. You removed it from angling, but let it be in Recreational fishing. Did I revert you on angling, did I ask you to reconsider? No, I did not. Should I have asked you before adding image to angling? No, I should not. You do not own the article. Where do you see "pushing" in those two edits?
 * 2) Elekhh liked my image better than the one in the article now, and put it to be the lead image. You reverted the user's edit, Elekhh never reverted you. Where do you see "pushing" in this edit?
 * 3) Elekhh went to the talk page of the article to discuss the changes. Discussing changes at an article talk page is not considered to be "pushing". Articles talk page are made for that very purpose.
 * Conclusion. You reverted my edit and Elekhh in two different articles. Neither me nor Elekhh ever reverted your edit. That's why I do consider your language inappropriate. I do not really care about you opposing the nomination, but please do not say that somebody was attempting to push the image. Nobody did. BTW you constant talking about that the image is good to illustrate depression is not very appropriate either, and could make one depressed. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any edit warring, only some proposals for improvement, and an open discussion regarding the merits of the image. Let's keep focused. Elekhh (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):::::So you were talking to me? Here's the history of one article. How many times I edited it? Two times, first, when I added the image, second few minutes later, when I changed the caption. Any "pushing" so far? Here's the history of other article. How many time you see my name here? Two times, first, when I added the image, second few minutes later, when I changed the caption. Any "pushing" so far? What have I done wrong in your opinion? I guess after talking to you I will consider go fishing myself just to relax and get rid of depression you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do find your language very inappropriate. We don't shy away from harsh criticism here, but it should be constructive.  Thus, you don't say, "this image sucks," you say it is unsharp, overexposed, etc.  While the mood of an image is inherently subjective, you could say you find it more gloomy than relaxing without going on and on about how badly you feel about it.  Tying it to depression, a mental illness which has nothing to do with this image, is over the line IMO and makes it seem like you are just trying to demoralize the photographer.  Further, saying someone is trying to "push" an image makes it sound like there is some sort of sinister manipulation going on, rather than good faith edits to the encyclopedia.  I was amused to see in the edit history that it was you who removed the image from Angling and moved it from the lead in Recreational fishing.  Consider if it might be just as accurate to say one editor with ownership issues over certain fishing articles is pushing to remove the contributions of others. Fletcher (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodness... This thread seems... very disorganised. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of you incivility. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If have in any way been uncivil, I apologise. But again Mbz1, instead of just making accusations, you need to explain how I have been uncivil. There is now a pile on of supporters from this page attempting to to instigate this image as the lead image on recreational fishing. And why are you trying to stigmatise depression Fletcher, calling it a "mental illness"? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not ask you to apologize, I asked you to respond my questions that you never did. So one more time: I have never reverted any of your edits, just the opposite you reverted me and Elekhh, and then you said: " There have already been attempts to push this picture as the lead image on angling and recreational fishing. In both cases, it is quite inappropriate." Please in plain English explain to me, where do you see pushing? What I have done wrong? Please stop talking about the discussion going on at the article talk page. It is an appropriate place for such discussions, to call it "pile on" and.or "pushing" is inappropriate.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No thanks, that's enough. I've said what I think about the picture. I don't want to keep trying to respond to these shifting quicksands. Mbz1 says the attempts to make the picture the lead image in fishing articles is not happening. Others can draw their their own conclusions. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "pile on" of supporters at the talk page, have you forgotten that you linked from here to the talk page? I had been unaware of any discussion there and simply found it courtesy of your link.  And I in no way stigmatized depression, nor am I sure why calling something a mental illness stigmatizes it, unless you presuppose mental illness is shameful in which case you are guilty of stigmatizing, not me!  For the record I was referring to clinical depression which is the sense that you seemed to be using the word when you said the image should be captioned "the twilight of hope".  Fletcher (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I can't see what all the fuss is about.  It is a beautiful picture that provides a certain very real atmosphere -  "a typical fishing scene on a foggy morning," as someone above termed it.  It actually shows a person fishing as opposed to a girl simply holding a fish.  I admit it is a very cute little girl but there is more artistic merit in the Mbz1 picture.  As for the comment above that the fog in this picture is a "murky brown": I would just wonder if perhaps your monitor needs adjustment, as I see a cool silver fog myself!  Stellarkid (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's my monitor. I see a dreary pollution smog rather than a cool silvery fog! --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per Fletcher. Broccoli (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Email canvassing for support, are we Mbz1? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you heard about WP:AGF or you are having difficulties not only with being fair and civil, but also with assuming good faith?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. EV is low in both articles, not a wonderfully composed picture - it is dominated by the sun shining through the fog, and the dark shadows, rather than the ostensible subjects of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to users trying to force an image into the lead of an article against editors wishes. This is above everything an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic value comes first. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And looking at the histories of those articles, I see that this was not done - I withdraw and apologise. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that yet another user confirms that the image was not forced to any article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak support Been thinking about this for some time now, and while I agree it may not be ideal for illustrating the lake IMO the image is suitable for recreational fishing and is the sort of image I remember seeing in story books I used to read. --Muhammad (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)