Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/American Eskimo Dog

American Eskimo Dog

 * Reason:Blown headlights, high noise, low detail, blur, strange blue dot to the left of the dog's ear, what may be some hot pixels scattered throughout the image, and some sharpening artifacts all detract from this low quality snapshot. Furthermore, if you are interested in reading a discussion on whether the dog's pose is representative, see the previous delist nomination. J     Are you green? 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator: J     Are you green?


 * Delist &mdash; J     Are you green? 21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why have you not mentioned on the nominator's and/or uploader's talk page that you've nominated this for delisting? --Bagginz 05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had not believed it necessary. It is now done. J     Are you green? 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessary? It's clearly in the guidelines for delisting and it also was discussed at length in the discussion you linked to above. --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist This picture is not nearly good enough quality. -Fcb981 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Bad quality. 8thstar 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No vote Bad quality? Not. Aesthetics and appeal of the picture easily trump its minor technical flaws. --Bagginz 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After all this, I've decided to withdraw my vote because after reflecting on it, I feel that I've gotten wrapped up on too many levels in this. Under those conditions, my vote may not be fair to the process. The closer need not come to a decision as to whether my vote should count or not, because I'm not voting. I'd still like to see this remain FP, and I leave my arguments for this picture on the table. --Bagginz 18:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please clarify. I do not see anything "minor" about the technical flaws of this photograph, and aesthetics are relatively poor (see the latest picture of a mammal promoted to FP and compare it to this one). Appeal has little to do with becoming a featured picture and is merely a subjective claim. Of course, if you can back your statement, I would be happy to adress it more thoroughly. J     Are you green? 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿  03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does YFB keep following me around like he's my little brother? --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a very nice picture of a prairie dog you've linked to. If I were a golden eagle, I'd fly into my computer screen to get to it. But since you asked me to clarify my thoughts about another doggie picture... The blown highlights are white on a very white dog and doesn't detract from the overall effect. The noise is not "high" and, again, really doesn't detract. The detail is good. That "strange blue dot" is No Big Deal, and is something that can be easily Photoshopped out. That it can be trivially removed is a nice example of why it is and should be incumbent on nominators to leave a message on the uploader's talk page so that they "may be able to address the issues and avoid the delisting of the picture."Your assertion that "[a]ppeal has little to do with becoming a featured picture and is merely a subjective claim," runs smack against one of the big ideas of featured pictures in that they can be "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." How can deciding what is eye-catching -- in other words what is appealing -- be anything but a somewhat subjective judgment? Subjective judgments on what's appealing has lots to do what does and doesn't get featured picture status.But why stop at my subjectivity? The eye-catchiness of this photo can be attested to by (a) its use and re-use on Wikipedia and (b) how it's been shamelessly copied on many outside websites (including those that are not verbatim ripoffs of Wikipedia text). Count them! This photo got its featured picture status, and kept it, fair and square. You may dismiss it as a "bad quality snapshot." I won't. --Bagginz 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have marked your Keep votes because your contributions give the impression that you are a single-purpose account. It is normal practice at FPC to disregard the votes of users who have very few edits, whose only contributions are consistently voting in the same way, or whose votes do not take into account the current FP criteria (see User:NegativeNed). It appears that you are attempting to disrupt the delisting of featured pictures by voting Keep on principle because you disagree that delisting should be permitted. This is WP:POINT. --YFB ¿  14:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, here's another page: WP:AGF. I can assure you that I'm not trying to disrupt the voting process by, uh, voting. That said, I don't disagree that sometimes a featured picture should lose its FP status. But if I vote Keep, it's because I sincerely believe that that particular picture should keep its status. When challenged, I have explained my vote. If I thought a picture should be delisted, the voting has usually gone so exorbitantly far in that direction that my vote would feel, to me, superfluous. Furthermore, I'm quite cognizant of the FP criteria, but not as an inflexible series of hypertechnical check off boxes used to summarily dismiss otherwise deserving contributions. I try to see the picture through the pixels. --Bagginz 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of WP:AGF, thank you. I am drawing the attention of the closer to your contribution history because it lacks any evidence that you are a genuine contributer to Wikipedia, which is considered a requirement for your votes to be counted. Looking back over your history, you made 5 edits in May 2005, 4 of which were supporting the original promotion of this image or arguing with those who opposed it. Then you were entirely absent for exactly 14 months until you popped back up to oppose the first attempt to delist this very same image. You then made successive edits for one week, 25 out of 28 of which were either voting Keep, arguing with those who voted Delist, or complaining that the proper delisting process was not being adhered to. Then you disappeared again for another 9 months until, surprise surprise, the Eskimo dog photo was once again nominated for delisting. Since then you haven't made a single edit besides voting Keep at delisting nominations. WP:AGF requires that good faith is assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Well, I think the above represents sufficient evidence to at least allow the closer to be notified that your voting history is somewhat suspect. --YFB ¿  16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Drat! I've been sooooooooo busted by the Wikipolice! Your detective work must have found the trail of Eskie paw prints from the scene of the crime leading back to my IP address!  I plead Guilty With An Explanation to the charge of Contributing To Wikipedia When I Actually Have Something To Contribute. But may it please the court, and before Hir Honor The Closer pronounces a verdict on whether I'm to be Persona Non Votea, can I make a few words in my defense?  Most of my contributions have involved this forum, but not all. This is because areas of fact on which I am not a complete dilettante, namely ozone research, were already written well enough for Wikipedia that there was only a small, but scientifically key edit I thought necessary (Defense Exhibit A).  That and another clarification on an amusement park ride (Exhibit B) are the sum total of my edits on things having nothing to do with FP's.  Not much, but not zero, so your claim that my history "lacks any evidence that [I am] a genuine contributer to Wikipedia" is demonstrably false. Voluminous? No. Genuine? I think so, but I'm happy to let other people decide for themselves about that.I read this page on a fairly regular basis, and I'll cheerfully admit that the appearance of the Eskie picture above (Exhibit C) acts a catalyst for me to jump in feet first. (It's usually being challenged on those votes that gets my mouth wide open.) Taking photos of adoptable Eskies on behalf of a dog rescue agency taught me how genuinely difficult it is to get the pose, expression and lighting right for that whiter-than-white breed, even for the modest purposes of Petfinder.com.  This photo nailed it on many levels, and appears to have become of the most widely used dog pictures on Wikipedia. I was glad it got FP status, and I still think it deserves it when I compare it to all the other mammal pictures and not just the one that Thegreenj linked to.  I've already discussed why I voted the way I did for other pictures.My complaints about the "proper delisting process" were exclusively about delisting nominators failing to leave messages for uploaders or the original nominators. Leaving a note really is the fair thing to do, and contrary to what Fcb981 hinted at, it's not merely a technical nitpick. This is about as hard a rule as there is for delisting, but it is often ignored.  Pointing this out was a valid complaint then, and it's a valid complaint now no matter who does the pointing.Your background check of me has paid close attention and indeed nicely describes the evidence of where and when I've said stuff, but skips the details of what I've said and the explanations of why I said them.  That's ok but have I disabused you of your suggestion that I "disagree that delisting should be permitted?" I'm mildly offended by your implication that I'm here in less than good faith, and by your little Scarlet Letter notes, but I'll eventually stop crying in my martini. In the meantime, I'm happy to throw myself on The Mercy of the Closer and accept hir verdict on whether I'm disenfranchised or not. I stand by what I wrote. Court adjourned?--Bagginz 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find your sarcastic tone, as encountered in several of your previous posts, rather unhelpful. I'm sorry that I didn't draw closer attention to your other edits but there is precedent at FPC for voters with such a limited contribution history (and particularly one which otherwise shows such a strong pattern as yours here) to have their votes disregarded. The accepted method of informing the closer of such concerns is to append a small-text note after each of the user's votes. I should also point out that your "explanations" for your votes at other pictures have all taken the same form, namely that "aesthetics/interest/etc. outweighs minor technical flaws". Unfortunately technical considerations are very important among the FP criteria and have become more so as the overall quality of Wikipedia's images has improved (not to mention the improvements in affordable camera technology over the past couple of years). That is one reason why we have a delisting process. I have not disagreed with your complaint about notifying the original creator/nominator - that is an important part of the delisting process. Nevertheless, despite your lengthy explanation I would be very surprised if whoever closes this nomination allows your votes to affect the outcome. If you wish to become involved in the Featured Pictures process, there are a great many nominations at which you could voice your opinion. You should also try to contribute to other aspects of Wikipedia, however, as few of our articles are perfect. --YFB ¿  06:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some I would agree with in what you've written, and some I would dispute, but I'll hold my tongue and ("surprise, surprise") minimize the sarcasm. That said, I truly do appreciate the invitation. Thanks.--Bagginz 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say, that is pretty convincing. : / -Fcb981 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not get in between you and YFB, but I think that you should reconsider yoour position on this particular vote, since that is what you argue for in response to YFB's first inquiry. If you scroll up to the top of this page, you will find a B-52 bomber nomination, which I conservatively estimate to have a 0% chance of passing as a featured picture. That photograph is much higher quality than this one - a better angle, no detail lost from overexposure, no destracting and unnatural background... Perhaps your 9 months away from Wikipedia mean that you need to get reaquainted with the expectations of standards here, but in any case, I think that it would help to realise: 1 - that not every nice picture is a featured picture and 2 - that you need to support subective claims with objective proofs. Featured pictures are exceptional images. Maybe this is not a "low quality snapshot" to you, but there is a difference between that nice snapshot you found and set as your computer's wallpaper and the amazing photographs that become featured pictures. J     Are you green? 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked me to clarify, so I did. I discussed why I think the Eskie picture should remain FP, and you discussed a picture of an airplane. I congratulate you for your remarkable evolution from a self-described "absolute cluelessness about good photography" a scant two weeks ago to where you're nominating pictures for delisting (which is ok), and condescendingly suggesting my aesthetic and technical judgment doesn't go much beyond cutesy pictures. Dude, you don't know a thing about me. People can have honest disagreements, and I respect that, but picture me unimpressed right now - with blown highlights and a strange blue dot next to my ear.--Bagginz 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had no right to be nor did I mean to be rude or condescending. As for my qualifications in photography, I think that my general knowledge of photography plays a very small role in this particular argument. Each of my reasons can be shown to exist no matter how good or bad a photographer I am. J     Are you green? 02:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that can be held against the picture is its blur, but calling it a low quality snap shot is out of order. If it was, it would never have been promoted as recent as it was in the first place. - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Taking the nominator's reasons one at a time:
 * 1) I don't see any blown highlights.
 * 2) I can see individual hairs and grass leafs, how is that low detail?
 * 3) Blue dot can be removed.
 * Well, here is how I see it:
 * The blown headlights is the completely white part of the dog that covers all but its underside that contains no detail. That is not to say that the dog is not white in true life, but that part of picture is exposed just so that it eliminates all texture and detail from the dog.
 * The blades of grass go up to 15 pixels wide; I had better be able to see them or else the picture would be completely devoid of detail.
 * True, but the other detracting qualities are still well over enough, in my opinion, to delist the picture. J     Are you green? 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I took this. Dismissing it as a snapshot is unfair: it was composed for Wikipedia's benefit, and is the end result of several dozen takes.  It has good composition with nice contrasting colors.  It shows the dog's personality rather well, which to me is as representative of the breed as any details of stance would be.  The technical quality is not perfect, but overall, when I compare it to all the other mammal FPs, I think it holds up okay. Robert Southworth 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not in any way mean to dismiss your photograph as a poor contribution to Wikipedia. It serves its purpose well; if I were trying to identify a dog, this picture would be worth a thousand words. I appreciate your effort; this, which I rashly nominated for FP earlier, was the only of 33 consecutive pictures that came out well, but all that is really important is the final output. I am sorry if my previous comments implied that you put little effort into shooting the picture. J     Are you green? 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delist - It's not a bad photo, but it really doesn't strike me as anything special. It seems as though it was shot handheld, as there's motion blur both on the dog and the background - a tripod might have helped. There's also quite a bit of noise which probably couldn't be avoided with the point-and-shoot camera used (possibly with better lighting?), but since there's nothing to stop someone taking a photo of this not-especially-unusual dog with a decent camera that's not really an excuse. I'm also at a loss to figure out how a photo of a sitting dog can tell the viewer anything at all about its personality - that's not a criticism of the pose, although standing would have been more enc, but I think equating "smiling dog" with "illustrative of personality" is stretching dog psychology a bit. Overall there is in my opinion almost no chance at all that this photo would be promoted if nominated today, so we should delist it. It's no longer among the best Wikipedia has to offer. --YFB  ¿  18:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ya know, after I withdrew my vote (and it's still withdrawn), you'd think I'd have the tact to STFU. (I have no tact.) But part of the reason I withdrew from voting was that I getting worried about being too passionate about this picture, and not being altogether sure why. Since YFB mentions it, I think this picture does have a lot to do with dog personality and psychology -- specifically the dog-owner relationship. There's a subtlety to this photo that is a real grabber for me and perhaps others.I won't comment on YFB's technical criticisms (not that I agree with them), but I'll note that many of the featured mammal pictures communicate something about that animal's personality. The lynx kitten is curious. The koala is slow. The otters are playful. The sheep like being herded like, uh, sheep. The prairie dog is alert. The squirrel is industrious. The tiger is proud. The American Eskimo Dog is ... loyal.<BR><BR>Let's look at the compositional elements of this picture. What is the location? There's clipped grass and ivy - so it's something domestic and since the dog is not leashed, it's likely a backyard. Look at how the dog's head is positioned. He's looking up and slightly to his side, so he's looking at something instead of just staring off into space.  From the angle, it's likely a person: probably his owner because the dog is in a backyard, totally relaxed and in the moment.  The dog's not thinking or anticipating anything, otherwise his mouth would be closed. He's just happy and smiling at its master. <BR><BR>Now here's where the picture hits it out of the park: We're close enough to be drawn in as observers to this quiet bonding between a dog and owner. Our attention remains on the dog, but because of the camera position, the dog's expression and the direction of his gaze, we're cued that we're next to somebody making the dog happy. We're pulled in not because the dog is ostentatiously smiling at us, but because we're sharing in a lovely moment! So it's not just about the dog, it's also about the loyalty and affection between dogs and people. The photo is compositionally subtle in execution, powerful in effect, and still perfectly encyclopedic. No wonder this picture has been lifted by so many sites!<BR><BR>You might think I'm reading too much into this, and it might not have the same effect on everybody, but I've taken pleasure from this "snapshot." I imagine many others of the Kodak lumpenproletariat have too. I say this is among the best that Wikipedia has to offer, but deconstructed or not, it looks like this photo is going to be delisted. Bummer. --Bagginz 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist not "best work" of WP. more like a snapshot - even if it was taken especially for WP. Witty Lama 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist, not the best, grainy (and not too large), replicable. gren グレン 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mgm shas 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per previous delist comments. The amount of work that went into creation of a photo is not one of the FP criteria. -- Moondigger 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

8 delist, 3 keep, 1 non-vote: delisted --YFB ¿  03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)