Talk:Cat/Lead photo

Lead photo addressed on November 20, 2007

I'm not getting a response from the main pic discussion so I'll post it here. ["Cattus americanus", to the right.]

Cattus americanus

Bobisbob (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it suffers from a common flaw in amateur animal photography - namely that it is taken from above from a human's perspective looking down. Almost all professional animal photographers will shoot from the animal's level, which gives more personality and character. I think such shots generally have better balance as well. Stavrolo (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. So is the current picture just a temporary pic until we can find a better one? Because the cat looks like a kitten. Bobisbob (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The main image looks like a kitten because the perspective makes the cat's head seem larger than life. Cat w/ big head = look like a kitten. I think it's a good photo. A little quirky, with character. I think for the main image something a little more neutral, with a solid background and a more neutral base would be more 'encyclopedic.' Stavrolo (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a cat is a domestic animal. So it's relationship to human beings is a fact and actual part of a cat's reality. And by the way, this cat shows it's own view to a human being (me ;-) 79.214.225.10 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Feral cat picture

Feral cat

As long as we're talking cat pictures, I'd submit this picture I took of an elderly feral barn cat in 2002 in Virginia. There aren't many pictures of old cats on this page. The eyes are a little dark, but I think it has a great determined pose and expression. It's easy to tell that this is not a cat that has had an easy life. Stavrolo (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

this is a pretty good photo of a feral, and i agree it does give a good sense of the hard life such a cat tends to lead. Anastrophe (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is scary cat! Maybe it could make smaller on sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.130.101 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Crop, and brighten face

This is a great photo. Sad though, even "haunting", but really does convey everything said above. I've taken the liberty of modifying the photo, with brightness/contrast adjustment and clarified it. I can crop it, but I think the composition, that it's a feral, to show more of the surroundings makes this image tell a story. I'll see if it "tells" the same story if cropped. ←Gee♥Alice 02:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it does tell the same story after being cropped. ←Gee♥Alice 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawning cat picture

A yawning cat.

The quality of the top image seemed very lackluster to me, so I looked through my archives to find what I think is a better picture of the same subject, seen below. The main problems with the original is that [1] there is what appears to be a blurry white wall in the foreground blocking half the subject [2] the aperture is too wide, so the cat's paws and its body are blurred out. This is and not appropriate for illustrating the animal [3] it is taken from the perspective of the owner, who is looking down at the animal, which is an amateurish mistake and [4] the photo is not in focus in general - notice that there is no detail on the cat's tongue, or teeth, or fur. Stavrolo (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your cat looks like it's dead. We could as well have a dying rat hung head down by its rear feet from a tree with mouth open here if this is the picture you recommend. I'm all for replacing pictures with better ones as long as they are "better". Replacing with images that are completely out of line is... well, out of line. BTW - if you want to play a list-what-you-can-about-what-is-wrong-with-other-picture game, then look at yours first and compare. Part of the cat is not seen in original picture? You have whole half that's not there either. Shallow depth of field? At least the face (what matters) is in focus, unlike in your picture where focus is on an unidentified part of the subject. Before you call something poor photography, first deliver one that's not a snapshot. Or else you're just making yourself look like a complete fool. MarkMarek (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

my rule of thumb for any WP editor who suggests a particular photo of a cat for inclusion in this article: if the WP editor is the photographer, and the subject is the photographer's cat, then i'll always disrecommend its use. everybody wants a photo of their kitty to grace the WP cat article. and that's nice. but it isn't going to fly. i think my kitty is the cutest in the world, but i'm not going to make an ass of myself and take a photo of her and then come by and say "oh look isn't this a better photo for the article?". it's just too transparent. grow up, fellow editors. (note well, this comment is not directed at any specific editors - other than those who meet this test) Anastrophe (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record it is not my cat. It is a stray cat I shot in Japan a few years ago. Stavrolo (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Very candid, but was it legal? - Neparis (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep your snapshot off of cat page. It is a bad snapshot on multiple levels and unless approved by other editors, it will not be replacing previous image. The purpose of editing is to make the article better, not worse. $.02 MarkMarek (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmie a break - I'm all for subjectivity, but this is silly. The original is not in focus, not even the face. If the face was in focus you'd be able to see the detailing on the your pet's tongue. The improved photograph is cropped. Yours is obstructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavrolo (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You can continue vandalizing this page, but your vandalism will be under surveillance and will not last long. All you have shown so far is that you are skilled in utilizing strawman arguments but creating misleading fallacies and lies will not go too far. Several editors have participated on creation and maintenance of this article and even though controversies over images as well as text occurred, we have been able to reach consensus on most matters. In this particular case - I am willing and open to accept the consensus again. If the majority vote selects your snapshot, I will go with it. But I will not just because you set up a strawman to mislead everyone with lies. And that's the difference between you and me - I say let's hear what other editors think and take action based on majority vote, and you continue attacking the original image and declare yours "improved" (lmfao). Trust me, your message is clear and we get it. You are going to attack others to get your point across no matter what. You are not afraid to wield unfounded mockery (poor photography = lmao) because the picture you are trying to force upon this page has absolutely nothing to offer, so you can't point anyone to anything worthy about it. Hence the only option you have is to attack the opposition believing that low quality of your snapshot will go unnoticed by drawing attention away from and pointing fingers at made up faults of the original image. MarkMarek (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, how is this vandalism? All I see is one person upset that his personal photo of his pet is being removed subject to a good faith effort to improve the article. That's not vandalism, at least as wikipedia defines it. I don't see any consensus supporting the black cat. I am open to commentary from disinterested parties, however. Stavrolo (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not my cat, I don't have any pets as can be seen from - already archived - discussions). You have removed my response in effort to continue with your attacks. That's vandalism. You have also attempted to remove one of your strawman arguments from your previous posts in attempt to twist the debate. You disregard requests to leave the decisions on majority vote and blatantly keep forcing your snapshot upon the page. Furthermore, you disregard warnings and requests to stop vandalizing the page until the consensus is met. You have not offered anything else but repeat vandalism out of sheer spite on wikipedia. If you continue vandalizing this page, you will be reported. MarkMarek (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

'Oh, no! He doesn't agree with me! Vandal! Vandal!' Report it then. This is not vandalism as defined in the Wikipedia guidelines.Stavrolo (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you one last time to quit vandalising the article until the consensus is met. MarkMarek (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am asking you to quit substituting your own photograph until consensus is met. We appear to be at an impasse. I was also shocked to find that the info links for the image point to your, um, porn site. Are you using this page to keep up your Google rank?Stavrolo (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And stop labeling every edit you dislike "vandalism". Please see WP:VANDAL; nothing happening in this debate even comes close. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for confirming my previous report on your strawman arguments. That's all I could ask for. If you want to replace the image on the page, it is to be discussed first. Hence original image will be retained until editors agree on a different image. Your snapshot you are forcing upon the page has nothing to offer, which you have proved by never be able to say anything positive about it. All you can do is throw trash on the original image to get your point across - aka strawman. And you continue doing so now by attempting attacks against me. Once again, that's all I could ask for. Thanks for proving me right on this one. MarkMarek (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

setting aside the bickering - which is quite uncivil for the most part - i'm not terribly in favor of this new photo of a yawning cat. it's more on the 'artistic' side than the 'descriptive'. on the other hand - i question the need even for any photo of a yawning cat at all. Anastrophe (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe you have archived this page before. Can you throw this mess into archives too? Feel free to replace the image with the new one, or if you prefer to do so, repost them both on here to give more editors a say in it too. I would just like to have this mess removed form the talk page so it doesn't distract ffrom other conversations. Thanks MarkMarek (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

archiving is strictly a cleanup task for old threads, in my opinion. this thread is still current. i'm not in favor of achiving discussions that are current. Anastrophe (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

While reading through the article I actually thought: "Now that's not a very good picture of a yawning cat, surely there must be a better one somewhere". So I'm not surprised at all to see a discussion going on about this. The proposed new picture strikes me as much more representative of "typical" cat/feline behaviour. First of all the top-down view on the black cat is amateurish and at least half of the visible body should be cropped to make this picture visually acceptable. The shallow focus prevents the onlooker from quickly realizing that this is a resting cat, at first I thought this kitty is going to pounce! The white obstruction in the foreground doesn't help at all, it's simply an eyesore.
The new picture could use a little push on the contrast, apart from that it very convincingly portrays a cat being lazy which nicely illustrates the fact that cats sleep more than they wake. The cat's mouth is nicely and fully visible. Yawn!! --Boo (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots

All the above debate is pointless, since none of these pictures are of encyclopedic quality to begin with, including the one presently on the page, which is distorted and obviously just taken in someone's bedroom. We need a professional quality image, preferrably on a solid, neutral background, that shows the entire body of the cat without lens distortion, weird angles, etc., and in a non-cutesy manner (no yawning or other funny faces). Preferrably a side shot, with the head facing the camera. People, this article is the "I'm feeling lucky" target of Google searches on "cat" or "cats"; i.e. it is the article on cats for the world, pretty much. It should be better than this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: The image quality of the black yawning cat pic above right is what we are looking for, but the subject matter (a yawning or perhaps hissing cat) isn't appropriate for the lead picture. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Maine coon as main picure

Could this work? it shows the cat on indoors on a sofa which could be it's "natural" setting. Bobisbob (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't see it as any sort of improvement on the current main photo. the current photo works fine, and has been stable for months. if it ain't broke....Anastrophe (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

New Main Picture

How about this for the main picture.

Sadly, it dont have its body showing but you get the idea.

Somewhere to start:

Perhaps not optimal, but a good example of a an encyclopedic image

a treasure trove: commons:Cat

if somebody thinks a particular breed would be most representative of the species: commons:Category:Cat_breeds

I have a soft spot for the main image in the Black cat article.

--PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)