Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Central African Republic
Central African Republic edit
- Reason
- A encyclopedic image, areday an FP on commons
- Articles this image appears in
- Central African Republic
- Creator
- dptcar
- Support as nominator Muhammad(talk) 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Low enc - what does this have to do with the Central African Republic, other than the kid being there - in fact, this could be anywhere in Africa. The photo itself is OK, but doesn't relate to article or caption. Try nominating this on Commons, instead, where it may even have a chance. --Janke | Talk 14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Everything in the caption is about its encyclopedia value. And, no, it couldn't be anywhere in Africa, because not everywhere in Africa was burnt to the ground, and the peoples of Africa are ethnically quite diverse, not all looking like they belong in the Central African Republic. On the other hand, people are mobile, so any picture that is a close up of a human being could have "nothing to do with anywhere other than the person being there." It's a compelling picture of a human being in the aftermath of a specific tragedy among many similar tragedies that have gone on in Central and West Africa for decades that many people, although not all, in the English-speaking world seem to be reading about. It is a compelling picture of a single human being, ultimately the end line of all conflicts: what it does to one person. He's an attractive child in an unusual situation and he's looking directly into the camera. One of the most famous, compelling, and encyclopedia pictures in the world is of an Afghan refugee girl. The Central African Republic contains people, plants, guns and gardens. Not every picture is its map. The picture is a snapshot of a shot in a place on time, and captures quietly that place and time, and would have visual impact on the main page of Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- But the photo doesn't actually show that that the town was burnt to the ground and in that sense, we're having to take on face value that this kid has been through war and strife. Even if he has, the image alone doesn't really contribute enough to that concept, I don't think. It is a great portrait and but I don't think it is a great documentary photograph in isolation. I've always argued that a photo doesn't have to encapsulate an entire concept completely, and that it is fine to illustrate just one element, but as far as I can see, it only illustrates an boy with a metal lamp on his head... ;-) There is nothing very distinguishing about him or his environment in the photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Everything in the caption is about its encyclopedia value. And, no, it couldn't be anywhere in Africa, because not everywhere in Africa was burnt to the ground, and the peoples of Africa are ethnically quite diverse, not all looking like they belong in the Central African Republic. On the other hand, people are mobile, so any picture that is a close up of a human being could have "nothing to do with anywhere other than the person being there." It's a compelling picture of a human being in the aftermath of a specific tragedy among many similar tragedies that have gone on in Central and West Africa for decades that many people, although not all, in the English-speaking world seem to be reading about. It is a compelling picture of a single human being, ultimately the end line of all conflicts: what it does to one person. He's an attractive child in an unusual situation and he's looking directly into the camera. One of the most famous, compelling, and encyclopedia pictures in the world is of an Afghan refugee girl. The Central African Republic contains people, plants, guns and gardens. Not every picture is its map. The picture is a snapshot of a shot in a place on time, and captures quietly that place and time, and would have visual impact on the main page of Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Zero encyclopedic value for Central African Republic. Kaldari (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per low enc for CAR article. If there is an article more specific to the government action it might very well deserve FPC. Also, try the Commons. gren グレン 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Diliff. It's a fine photograph, but this is an encyclopedia. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per DiliffThe freddinator (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're right This is the same group that promoted a 40 year old cell diagram to featured picture status, in some 40 languages. You're right to be dismissive of any outsiders. -- Blechnic (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Instead of being a sarcastic asshole, you could listen to what people are saying. This boy could be anywhere and from anywhere, therefore this photo is not very encyclopedic for any place. If we could figure out what ethnic group he belongs to, we could add him to the Demographics of the Central African Republic or to one of the sub-pages. If we had an article on the destruction of Birao, we could even add it there. Any thoughts on that or will your contribution be limited to whining? Matt Deres (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Matt, please remember WP:NPA! --Janke | Talk 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, being the same group that promoted a 40 year old cell image to featured article status, there's not much evidence here that I can go on, to provide you with information to have knowledge. So, no, I can't help. It appears decisions are made about what does and what doesn't belong in an encyclopedia by people who know too little about the subject to even know when it's wrong. Besides, you all are having fun dismissing any notion that's outside of what you deem "worthy of encyclopedia" (which in the case of cellular biology appears to be "Ancient" and "wrong") so there's no point in any outsider suggesting that maybe your knowledge is too limited. It's clear that dialog is not allowed. Someone got a notion about what belongs in a print encyclopedia ages ago (and a wrong notion at that, pictures are not decided by the single image in solitude), and the bandwagon filled up.
- I assume discussion will continue to be dismissed for some archaic limited version of what an encyclopedia is--aka the version that would have nicely held the 40 year old cell on a paper page. Cyber space must be EB 1973--old school. My field is too young for that. And too many human beings involved who don't belong in encyclopedias. --Blechnic (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have totally misunderstood the purpose of this page! The image is fine, we have nothing against it, it even adds value to the article (even if enc is low, any picture gives graphic interest to a page), but as such, it is not worthy of Featured Picture Status - that's the only thing we decide on, here. We do not decide whether a picture should be included in the encyclopedia or not! Read the very first sentence on this page: Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Get the idea? --Janke | Talk 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Blechnic, you do not seem to understand the point of this page. This image would be perfect for featuring on Commons, but is not appropriate for featuring on Wikipedia. Whining about being an "outsider" isn't going to change that. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies. Please do enlighten me precisely how a 40-year old cell diagram "added significantly to an article either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article?" The picture, although scientifically inaccurate was so eye-catching that the facts didn't matter? I would love to understand. Now I find out even more on Wikipedia that even if the pictures are crap, it doesn't matter, they should remain in an article. If it's wrong it doesn't matter, it's worthy of featured picture. It just has to be eye-catching enough, except in the case of this picture, it has to add encyclopedia value. I think I get it. If you like it, it's perfect, even if wrong, if someone who isn't you likes it, it's wrong, even if it's eye-catching. Got, it Kaldari, how idiotic of me to think there was a policy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take this to the talk page Blechnic, but if you do want to discuss this further, can you be specific (ie link to) regarding the 40 year old cell diagram you refer to? Bleating on and on and inaccuracy without actually providing any evidence is not constructive. I don't recall seeing it and therefore can't comment on why it is a FP. Generally, if it is genuinely and confirmed wrong, we would want it delisted, so please do bring it up on the talk page or nominate it for delisting with thorough rationale. Regardless though, that is a completely separate issue to this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Average_prokaryote_cell-_en.svg ? It's not 40 year old . --84.90.46.116 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you take this to the talk page Blechnic, but if you do want to discuss this further, can you be specific (ie link to) regarding the 40 year old cell diagram you refer to? Bleating on and on and inaccuracy without actually providing any evidence is not constructive. I don't recall seeing it and therefore can't comment on why it is a FP. Generally, if it is genuinely and confirmed wrong, we would want it delisted, so please do bring it up on the talk page or nominate it for delisting with thorough rationale. Regardless though, that is a completely separate issue to this image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies. Please do enlighten me precisely how a 40-year old cell diagram "added significantly to an article either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article?" The picture, although scientifically inaccurate was so eye-catching that the facts didn't matter? I would love to understand. Now I find out even more on Wikipedia that even if the pictures are crap, it doesn't matter, they should remain in an article. If it's wrong it doesn't matter, it's worthy of featured picture. It just has to be eye-catching enough, except in the case of this picture, it has to add encyclopedia value. I think I get it. If you like it, it's perfect, even if wrong, if someone who isn't you likes it, it's wrong, even if it's eye-catching. Got, it Kaldari, how idiotic of me to think there was a policy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Blechnic, you do not seem to understand the point of this page. This image would be perfect for featuring on Commons, but is not appropriate for featuring on Wikipedia. Whining about being an "outsider" isn't going to change that. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have totally misunderstood the purpose of this page! The image is fine, we have nothing against it, it even adds value to the article (even if enc is low, any picture gives graphic interest to a page), but as such, it is not worthy of Featured Picture Status - that's the only thing we decide on, here. We do not decide whether a picture should be included in the encyclopedia or not! Read the very first sentence on this page: Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. Get the idea? --Janke | Talk 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose No EV, imo. crassic![talk] 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose lack of enc. Cacophony (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- comment I wanted to support, but this image has heavy compression artifacts which are visible at 100%, in particular look at the childs forehead, the texture is caused by jpeg blockiness Thisglad (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a kid with a lamp on his head. No real significance or value, not even particuarly striking or significant. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. As a picture, it would actually be much more poignant and better structured without that lamp. This has nothing to do with cell diagrams. Motmit (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fine for children's toys of Africa, useless for Central African Republic. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-11 16:27Z
- Support Wonderful shot. The kid is full of "encyclopedic value". --Calibas (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted . --John254 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)