Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Light-blue Soldier Crab

Light-blue soldier crab [edit]

The Featured picture list is quite lacking in invertebrates. I love this photo, nice and colourful and accurate.; Appears in Mictyris, and will appear in its own species article as I get to it. Created by me. --liquidGhoul 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. - liquidGhoul 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good picture. Is it eating sand?--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In a way, it filters the sand for any nutrients, and spews the clean sand back up. --liquidGhoul 04:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice coloring and angle. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 04:34
Supportfrog, and now crab, what creature will liquidGhoul show us next time? :)--K.C. Tang 05:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even though a tad small (exactly what is the current FP size standard? ;-) What a mudface! --Janke | Talk 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent coloring, angle, focus. --Red Penguin 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I almost gagged on this one. - JPM | 10:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a good thing? :) --liquidGhoul 10:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Liquidghoul, are you aware that Brian0918 has made a change to your image again (replaced original, not uploaded as a different file)? I've compared both and there really isn't a big difference though. I do wish he would see the logic of the situation (and what seems to be the majority consensus) and just upload a copy, rather than overwrite the original. On that note, do you have a larger sized image or is that as big as it gets? It already looks rather overprocessed (massive sharpening lines around the legs) but in this case, the image is unique enough for me to support it in its current form. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentUnfortunately, this is as big as it gets. Although there were thousands of these guys, they will bury themselves as soon as I get ready to shoot. This one was further away than I would have liked, and the crop took quite some size. Can you give me which legs look overprocessed, I personally cannot see it. I have sharpened a bit, but have layered a mask over it, and gotten rid of most of the sharpening as I did not like it. Thanks for your comments. --liquidGhoul 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Add on comment I have zoomed in around the legs and see what you are talking about. I have lost the PSD file (stupid) so it is hard to do it again. I can only see it on the very occasional spot at actual size (mainly two left legs), so if anyone has a big problem with it, I will fix it when I have ample time. But I have learnt to always keep the PSDs and check sharpening with zoom. Thanks :) --liquidGhoul 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see it to some extent on all of the legs that have bright, illuminated edges contrasting against the background, but as I said before, I don't think it detracts enough to not support. It was more of a comment than a withdrawal of support. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, majority != consensus. Second, as you pointed out yourself, the change was very minor. That's why I didn't upload it to a new file. Voting over something so minor would have been a waste of everyone's time. But feel free to keep me under a magnifying glass. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-5 16:39
    - I'm not keeping you under a magnifying glass, I just happened to view the image and notice that once again you had made a change, in this case without actually mentioning so on this page. You are right that majority does not equal consensus, but I don't think that one person (you) who advocates doing things a different way is a lack of consensus in supporting the status quo either. If one dissenting opinion destroyed status quo, it would be chaos! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hear, hear! --Janke | Talk 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        In my opinion minor changes such as the one Brian0918 made should be uploaded over the original. I don't think anyone would say that the modification wasn't an improvement, and if there happens to be dissent, it's easy to revert. ~MDD 46 96 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I see your point, and it applies well in this case. But don't you agree that any change, however small, to a FP should always be announced on this page? --Janke | Talk 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Chaos?!?! Oh no! You must've won the argument, because your statement sounds so frightening... Anyways, I thought I announced the change on this page, as I normally do, but I guess not. In the future I will do so. In your original statement, however, you were not concerned with my announcing the change, just with my right to make that change. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 17:54

Weak oppose, I like the picture, and have no problems with it technically (size/whatever) but I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status. The camera is too high up and looks down on the poor crab. Pengo 17:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is about 5-10cm wide, and in incredibly wet sand. I was not going to kill my camera, by putting it in wet sand just to get a shot. Secondly, a low angle wouldn't suit this subject. The front is so large, that a low angle would take out most of the rest of the rest of the body, which would be less encyclopaedic.--liquidGhoul 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Quoting Pengo, "I don't find it engaging enough for Featured status". Alvinrune ^TALK 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You find a car "more engaging" than a crab (refering to police car on FPC page)? --liquidGhoul 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Give him a break, he's in middle school (per user page). Of course he finds a picture of a police car more engaging. Sheesh! Rklawton 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't sit around admiring crabs. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps you should get out more. There is enornous natural beauty out there. Certainly more than that ugly police car ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment When I said that Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg wasn't "engaging" enough, I suppose I worded it wrong. It seems as though the viewer is looking down on a poor crustacean. Also, though the background is natural and a image like this can be fairly tough to grab, the wet soil I guess made my decision to a weak oppose. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's an ugly little critter! How quickly can these guys plunge beneath the sand when you approach? I can't help but smirk at the idea of you trying to get this shot — surrounded by dozens except in whichever direction you happen to shove your camera :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 11:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly? They are quite cute. Takes them about 3 or 4 seconds to bury themselves. I have quite a few photos where they are half underground :-) --liquidGhoul 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - first class pic - Adrian Pingstone 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Joke 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job. Shame the background is a dull brown, but if that is their natural habitat its just what we want. -- Solipsist 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image of the crab. ~MDD 46 96 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice of this lil' guy. The only thing I would even change would be putting him on dry sand, rather than wet, so we see the ends of his legs. Staxringold 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't be very encyclopedic. Its habitat is wet sand. I shouldn't think you would ever find one of these on dry sand. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Tone 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice. --Pmsyyz 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. That is a very nice picture. The blue colour is amazing. Canuck89 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Aus soldier Crab.jpg howch e ng {chat} 17:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]