Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male Maratus volans

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Maratus volans edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 15:01:42 (UTC)

 
Original – Male Maratus volans in courtship pose
Reason
Image is freely licensed, highly technically accurate, has a complete file description in English, and is the only image of a male peacock spider in its famous courtship pose available anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons that is not a reduced resolution JPEG photograph; as an SVG which has also been cleaned of all raster components, this image is unlimited by resolution.
Articles in which this image appears
Maratus
FP category for this image
WP:Featured pictures/Animals/Arachnids
Creator
KDS444
  • Support as nominator – KDS4444Talk 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - totally brilliant image! I'm right in saying it started as a very fine drawing and then converted to an SVG file? Outstanding! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - image is not used on Maratus volans - presumably it should replace the info box image there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It looks good in the thumbnail but why do we have a rendering of it rather than a picture of the actual thing? --Muhammad(talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It's beautiful, but per Muhammad. The fact it's resolution independent doesn't makes this a bigger image in the sense that the increased resolution brings actual data. I see a lot of use for SVG but not this (and I can see author makes a lot of other beautiful useful diagrams). And not to mention there's always rendering issues with SVG (slow in that case, never render the same on different combinations of hardware/software when complex shapes are drawn ...). - Blieusong (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 
And there are not enough pixels on this image either
  • Weak oppose, per - Muhammad. Can't we replace it with a photo? And there are not enough pixels either on the image... Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, Agree with Muhammad. It is possible, so we should have a photo of this instead. --Chrismiceli (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Where photographs are available of animals, we should generally promote those. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the nominator substituted their SVG file for a recently obtained photograph by the current world expert back in February, so this evidently fails FP?#5. I suggest we just turn a blind eye to that. How so, incidentally your remark that a photograph is preferable to a drawing? Can you point to policy, please so that I can move to change it? Quite the opposite should be the case of course, though each case should naturally be determined on its merits in case of conflict. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagrams and drawings are only used when something can't be illustrated otherwise. The reality is so complex that a diagram or drawing can never replace the real thing. One notable exception is a big artist making a drawing or painting on something - THAT has an artistic value, because he/she adds that something that is mostly rather hard to describe. But that something is the thing that makes a big artist differ from a street artist. And this is one of the kind of things one studies when studying art history, aesthetics and so on. It is not a simple policy, but more than that. Hundreds and thousands of books were written on this king of topics, and more will be written. Hafspajen (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmhh.. well thanks for that. As example my case here's the photo illustrating Wild turkey and this is the Audubon print (Commons seems to have a complete collection of Birds of America from the University of Pittsburgh, part of the Zoomify bequest :) ; I trust one example at least of the bounty has made it to "Featured"). There's archaeological illustration as well one could give as example, though I don't doubt photography is making inroads there. I would still be curious to see policy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A historical collection, made 1825 - and arround - before the camera was used - and before we could take colour pictures. That justifies its encyclopedic value. Voting on this page is about aesthetic judgment, not policy. Polic is a simple thing. Policy says: picture should be used in article, they have to be used in at least two-three articles - preferably more, should be used at least for a week, it has to be in the article for at least 7 days before it can be nominated. The pixels has to be more than 1500, at least 1500px, but that is a minimum, the more the better - but preferably more, should have EV, - and - they have to be sharp, and of good quality. The rest is aesthetic judgment, and that one can't summarize that in a few words. This discussion is now long enough, if more questions, start a new thread at talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to WP:FP? (and incidentally the criteria is that the image should appear in at least one article, not at least two-three as you aver)) but to Crisco's assertion that photos are preferred over drawings. Wikipedia doesn't have space constraints, so if you would like to squeeze in a brief pointer I should appreciate it, you seems to be knowledgeable. Regarding this image I was suggesting that in this case we overlook FP?#5. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page, please. Hafspajen (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere you like, at a time and place of your choosing. I opt for urostomy pouches at 10 paces, no seconds. You should know my squirt is infallibly fatal. You might like to reconsider and withdraw. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohlalalala. Hafspajen (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is no current policy, but Hafs has already explained the rationale behind this: what we have here is an SVG depiction (an exceptionally well done SVG, I'll admit) of an animal that would be better and more accurately represented through photography. Unlike KDS' work with the ringworms, which are diagrams (and thus work better represented through illustrations), this is meant to show a whole animal - and just that. That the existing photograph is not as good as we'd like is not a reason to promote an illustration.
Yes, we could theoretically pass an Audubon plate (or even the whole set if somebody really wanted to clean them up), but I doubt they would pass as accurate illustrations of the animals, but rather based on their EV in depicting how Audubon depicted the animals, in an article on the plates (yes, last I checked there is one on just the plates) or book. If we could get a good scan of Dürer's Rhinoceros, that would probably pass too - as a depiction of Dürer's Rhinoceros. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pass on "better and more accurately represented" :). Thank you for confirming there is no policy. It would be frankly surprising if there was one such, given the long tradition of botanical illustration to name but just one area. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Incidentally Dürer's Rhinoceros is illustrated in its featured article by an 8.6 Mb image from Christies last year (I do quite a few of these myself as it happens). I'll nominate it directly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good idea. Thanks for that. I'd really like to see the effort rewarded here, but I can see there are issues to address. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - beautiful illustration, but there are some anatomical details that need to be fixed if this is to be considered FP material:
    • Most of the legs have the wrong number of segments. In particular, the raised 3rd legs do not seem to have patellas.
    • It looks like the spider is standing on its claws rather than its foot pads. See [1] for spider foot diagrams and photos.
    • The black "brushes" on the 3rd metatarsi should be more prominent and bushy.
Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are the footpads visible on the photo? In your featured image (seriously just curious, it may be your species doesn't have them - but then you did say "spider" didn't you)? @KDS444: plainly we need to ping the nominator about this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the foot pads are visible in both of those photos. They are the small black areas at the ends of each leg. You can see lots more foot pad photos in this paper. It looks like there may be small foot pads in KDS444's illustration, but it appears that the spider is standing on its claws rather its foot pads. Kaldari (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I thought, not that I'm an expert by any means. Still it's wonderful someone like you taking an interest. Thank you so much. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kaldari for your opinion on the picture. I know by experience that when drawing or picturing something almost all people tend to simplify things. Who knows why... But it is the way it is. Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to simply withdraw my nomination at this point. I don't see a straightforward procedure for this as there is on Commons, so I am adding the request as just a statement. We can end the discussion now. Thank you all for your valuable opinions. KDS4444Talk 11:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that nominator and creator are the same individual: KDS4444=KDS444.)

Not Promoted -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Male_Maratus_volans&oldid=1138510453"