Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:
Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --
Pharaoh Hound(talk)13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture.
KangarooFan111:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to {{fpc}}. Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. |
AndonicOTalk |
Sign Here11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--
Janke |
Talk12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators.
Daniel1012:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. --
AltirisExeunt08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --
Bridgecross16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection.
Wittylama21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
<facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all me@n.</facetious> ~
trialsanderrors08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach -
Adrian Pingstone10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support my 12 year old son took this picture and posted it. pretty good for a 12 year old. so all of you out there who opposed it are either blind or just plain stupid. open up your eyes. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
MumDude (
talk •
contribs).
Oppose. Featured Pictures are not supposed to be "pretty good for a 12-year-old", nor is "cute" one of the criteria for featuring. No credible reason has been advanced for featuring this picture - it does not provide the "thousand words" for any article. Guy (
Help!)
14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment As Guy says, the age of the photographer has no bearing whatever on the acceptability or otherwise of the photo, and we are not blind or stupid. We rarely meet bad manners like yours on Wikipedia, thank goodness. I've been voting for or against FP candidates for about 3 years now and I've got 1500 pics on Wikipedia. What's your record? -
Adrian Pingstone14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
From your picture Pingy you look about 103 I am suprised you started so late!!!!!!! Get a life!!! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
MumDude (
talk •
contribs).
CommentWill everyone please stop argueing over this picture? I took it to show off my guinea pigs, and now it's just leading to war! It's either a nominated picture, or not. If anyone starts to argue again I may call the administrators.
Joshua dude14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support aesthetically pleasing. Should be a featured picture
MumDude
Strongest oppose. Focus problems, excludes parts of the guinea pigs, and overall the animals in the picture are in a very bad position. Some dirt on the camera can also be seen. I suggest MumDude to mind
WP:NPA and reconsider his messeges. Michaelas10(Talk)17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Cuteness is not a way of determining what a FP is, and it is plainly obvious that the uploader has created multiple accounts to try to feature their picture- no user who votes dishonestly deserves FP status.
SuperFly2005 18:42 December 30th 2006 (UTC)
The only punishment for said behavior is a block. If the community (besides the socks) decides the picture is still FP-worthy, then it will be made featured, regardless of any inappropriate behavior in the voting (not saying that's the case here). Whether a user voted dishonestly or not is not reason to prevent featured status. --Tewy20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, was the tone of that comment a little strong? Sorry, I can assure you I'm not getting worked up over this. I was just saying that a nomination shouldn't be prevented featured status because of how the nominator acted, and I hoped that
SuperFly2005 wasn't voting "oppose" primarily because
Daniel10's behavior. --Tewy22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - lighting not too good, not a brilliant angle, red eyes on the white guinea pig; and then there's the possible sockpuppet issue. Sorry Daniel, but I don't give points for sockpuppets (or extremely likely sockpuppets).
Yuser3141500:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Mediocre on technical grounds, nominator is using sockpuppets to rig the vote, and the original photographer's contribs show a strrong correlation with the nominator so one may be a puppet of the other as well. Don't upload a so-so photo of your pets and then try to scam people into putting it up on the main page. —
Dgiestc01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Usually, red eyes are caused by reflection of the flash light from the subject's
retina. This is considered a no-no in photography. However, some animals do have naturally red eyes (white rabbits come to mind), and apparently guinea pigs, too. --
Janke |
Talk09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose: and I think that the poster above me (Dgies) has just summed it up perfectly. Not only is the original photographer using sockpuppets to try and rig the vote, but he/she has also just copied and pasted his/her own sockpuppet comments from the Peer Picture Review. I don't think there's a single SUPPORT vote from a genuine user at all (apologies if I'm wrong). The photo itself is hardly FP quality...
Ackatsis02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment; to put it very bluntly to everyone here, we only care about the quality of the images here. There is a reason why this page is called Featured Picture Candidates and notFeatured Photographers. On this page, all we care about are extremely well-taken, free-use images. We don't care if the photographer is 10 years old or 1000 years old; as long as the picture meets our standards, and it's free, we'll vote for it. Simple as that. --
AltirisExeunt08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Basically, yes. But in this case many editors are upset by the "unethical practises" of sockpuppeting and unauthorized inclusion of the photo in PotD and FP lists (which has been reverted) - so, this cannot be handled by discussing only the photo, the offenders need to be discussed, too. --
Janke |
Talk09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's an unremarkable photo, cropped too tight, and the image quality isn't that great. Good for a portrait of the family pet by a 12 year old maybe, but this aint about that. Dubious practices to sway the vote don't help much either.
Bobanny22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Nomination I found this picture and it is amazing!! The two guinea pigs are so cute!! Is there anything that the picture needs to make it better? Here is the picture:
Comment. I doubt it will pass FPC. The red-eye in the left guinea pig would have to be corrected, and the white balance is off (the picture is too red). The image has noticeable jpg compression, ans thus is not particularly sharp. There is also some colour noise on the background. Unfortunately, "cuteness" is not part of the FP criteria, and isn't valued in FP (though if a picture is good quality and cute, that's quite all right). It's a nice photo, but it's not high enough quality for FPC, sorry. --
Pharaoh Hound(talk)13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support A very good quality picture such as this deserves to be featured. Since lots of people have supported it, I'll change it to featured picture.
KangarooFan111:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment You can't change it to Featured picture if voting just started, I changed the template back to {{fpc}}. Also, the vote right above doesn't count, since there isn't a signature. |
AndonicOTalk |
Sign Here11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Vehement Oppose because of apparent ballot stuffing (puppeting?) by users Zooyak, KangarooFan1, TriceraGuy, KodiakB3, Monster1000 - all are new accounts. (Also because it is not FP quality - DOF problem, and the butt ends of both animals are cut off!)--
Janke |
Talk12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Not me. And this is breaking rules. It says make comments on the picture, no the person or people. I should tell the administrators.
Daniel1012:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Forget the flak! Oppose; on closer inspection, this picture has a small amount of blur picture-wide. Also, I highly doubt that many people will appreciate this picture. The shot is above average as compared to normal shots in my estimation, but it just doesn't seem to be very eye-catching. --
AltirisExeunt08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose and kicks away sockpuppets. Animals cut off edge of photo, focus problems, unattractive composition, and honestly not all that cute. --
Bridgecross16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong 'Oppose. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here - there's a very bad picture that somene took and that they will create multiple socks to try to get it featured. When that failed they just went straight ahead and featured it themselves. But, back to the picute, it's uninteresting, bad composition, bad lighting, unencyclopaedic and has retina reflection.
Wittylama21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)reply
<facetious>Superstrong AWESOME Support!!!111!! So so so cute, and I had one just like the one on the right. You peoples is all me@n.</facetious> ~
trialsanderrors08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Mean? No! We are voting here for the very best pictures on Wikipedia. To say this is pic is one of WP's very best is simply ridiculous. The left animal is is well blurred which puts it out of contention immediately. You clearly do not know the standard that FP pics are required to reach -
Adrian Pingstone10:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support my 12 year old son took this picture and posted it. pretty good for a 12 year old. so all of you out there who opposed it are either blind or just plain stupid. open up your eyes. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
MumDude (
talk •
contribs).
Oppose. Featured Pictures are not supposed to be "pretty good for a 12-year-old", nor is "cute" one of the criteria for featuring. No credible reason has been advanced for featuring this picture - it does not provide the "thousand words" for any article. Guy (
Help!)
14:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment As Guy says, the age of the photographer has no bearing whatever on the acceptability or otherwise of the photo, and we are not blind or stupid. We rarely meet bad manners like yours on Wikipedia, thank goodness. I've been voting for or against FP candidates for about 3 years now and I've got 1500 pics on Wikipedia. What's your record? -
Adrian Pingstone14:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
From your picture Pingy you look about 103 I am suprised you started so late!!!!!!! Get a life!!! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
MumDude (
talk •
contribs).
CommentWill everyone please stop argueing over this picture? I took it to show off my guinea pigs, and now it's just leading to war! It's either a nominated picture, or not. If anyone starts to argue again I may call the administrators.
Joshua dude14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Support aesthetically pleasing. Should be a featured picture
MumDude
Strongest oppose. Focus problems, excludes parts of the guinea pigs, and overall the animals in the picture are in a very bad position. Some dirt on the camera can also be seen. I suggest MumDude to mind
WP:NPA and reconsider his messeges. Michaelas10(Talk)17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Cuteness is not a way of determining what a FP is, and it is plainly obvious that the uploader has created multiple accounts to try to feature their picture- no user who votes dishonestly deserves FP status.
SuperFly2005 18:42 December 30th 2006 (UTC)
The only punishment for said behavior is a block. If the community (besides the socks) decides the picture is still FP-worthy, then it will be made featured, regardless of any inappropriate behavior in the voting (not saying that's the case here). Whether a user voted dishonestly or not is not reason to prevent featured status. --Tewy20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, was the tone of that comment a little strong? Sorry, I can assure you I'm not getting worked up over this. I was just saying that a nomination shouldn't be prevented featured status because of how the nominator acted, and I hoped that
SuperFly2005 wasn't voting "oppose" primarily because
Daniel10's behavior. --Tewy22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - lighting not too good, not a brilliant angle, red eyes on the white guinea pig; and then there's the possible sockpuppet issue. Sorry Daniel, but I don't give points for sockpuppets (or extremely likely sockpuppets).
Yuser3141500:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Mediocre on technical grounds, nominator is using sockpuppets to rig the vote, and the original photographer's contribs show a strrong correlation with the nominator so one may be a puppet of the other as well. Don't upload a so-so photo of your pets and then try to scam people into putting it up on the main page. —
Dgiestc01:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Usually, red eyes are caused by reflection of the flash light from the subject's
retina. This is considered a no-no in photography. However, some animals do have naturally red eyes (white rabbits come to mind), and apparently guinea pigs, too. --
Janke |
Talk09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose: and I think that the poster above me (Dgies) has just summed it up perfectly. Not only is the original photographer using sockpuppets to try and rig the vote, but he/she has also just copied and pasted his/her own sockpuppet comments from the Peer Picture Review. I don't think there's a single SUPPORT vote from a genuine user at all (apologies if I'm wrong). The photo itself is hardly FP quality...
Ackatsis02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment; to put it very bluntly to everyone here, we only care about the quality of the images here. There is a reason why this page is called Featured Picture Candidates and notFeatured Photographers. On this page, all we care about are extremely well-taken, free-use images. We don't care if the photographer is 10 years old or 1000 years old; as long as the picture meets our standards, and it's free, we'll vote for it. Simple as that. --
AltirisExeunt08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Basically, yes. But in this case many editors are upset by the "unethical practises" of sockpuppeting and unauthorized inclusion of the photo in PotD and FP lists (which has been reverted) - so, this cannot be handled by discussing only the photo, the offenders need to be discussed, too. --
Janke |
Talk09:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It's an unremarkable photo, cropped too tight, and the image quality isn't that great. Good for a portrait of the family pet by a 12 year old maybe, but this aint about that. Dubious practices to sway the vote don't help much either.
Bobanny22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)reply