Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Here kitty kitty

Here kitty kitty

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2024 at 09:05:44 (UTC)

Reason: High quality FP worthy picture with high EV, and a FP in various Wikis and Commons.
Articles in which this image appears: Cat and Carnivora
FP category for this image: Mammals
Creator: Von.grzanka on Commons

Support as nominator – The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No EV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the lead images in a GA infobox is not encyclopedic enought? We have promoted images with even lesser exposure. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Per Charles. Cute kitty, but nothing special. Przepraszam. – Sca (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Charles. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am puzzled by Charles' "No EV" oppose rationale. Can Charles or others elaborate as to what characteristic(s) must a photo have to pass the EV criterion #5 in regard to the Cat article? Also, can you point to a photo in the domestic cat category (or elsewhere on the web) that meets the EV criterion (not on the technical or compositional basis, but just on the EV basis)? Thanks. Pinging @Charlesjsharp: since he does not participate here on a regular basis. Bammesk (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails on criterion #5. Does not add significant encyclopedic value to the article and does not help readers to understand the article. Unless you have never seen a cat before. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, correct me if I am wrong, you are saying "cat" is a common subject, therefore no image of a cat can "add significant encyclopedic value to the (cat) article and help readers to understand the (cat) article"? Bammesk (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pondering over the same question raised by Bammesk for the past 2 days. I don't understand the EV rationale by the oppose votes either. It says in the criterion that the image should add significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article which this image fulfills clearly. The criterion also says picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. The current candidate is used as an example of the member of species Cat in it's infobox. How can you add any more of encyclopedic value to a picture? When you imagine a cat, this is how it looks like. When you google a cat, this is what it shows. When you see an animal that looks like this, you can understand this is a cat. This is clear cut EV right there. I'd like to ping @Sca and Hamid Hassani: also to the discussion for their take on encyclopedic value of a cat image. Any take would be much appreciated and will help me chose a better image next time (Since per FPC guidelines, All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.) Also, you may suggest any alternate image too. Additionally, I'd like to ask Charles how this candidate is any different than your black kite nomination that seemingly is in the similar context. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All black kites, as wild animals, look much the same. A high quality image can represent the species, either perched or flying, male or female (if you can tell the difference). Domesticated animals all look different and one image cannot represent them. Quite apart from that, this is a very ordinary image and there are hundreds of excellent cat images to choose from. Finally, we already have an FP. It is not as silly as the attempt to nominate a picture to represent 'MAN'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cat. Period. -- Sca (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note existing FP. I'd observe also that, while we have FPs of ubiquitous species, the technical standards tend to be higher, since such photographs are easier to take. blameless 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is a ubiquitous wild animal, not one of 600 million cats. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good, cute picture; but the cat is hunched over, and its body is not completely visible, esp. from the side. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do understand the oppose votes. Personally, I think this fails criterion #3: "Is among Wikipedia's best work." --Janke | Talk 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My inquiry (puzzlement) wasn't/isn't about the oppose "votes", my inquiry (call it critique) is about the oppose "rationale". Charles' rationale being "no EV" followed by ZERO elaboration. That's what was puzzling. As User:The Herald said above: "All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image" (per instructions on top of WP:FPC). The keyword is "specifics". User:Sca did offer some specifics when he wrote "nothing special", i.e. not an impressive image. But Charles' original oppose "rationale" offered ZERO specifics. Eventually, Charles finally offered some specifics in This diff by saying "very ordinary image". . . . . . On another note: not "among Wikipedia's best work" is a criterion, but by itself, with no elaboration whatsoever, it lacks "specifics". When you reject a nom, give the nominator "specifics", or at least give the nominator something, instead of nothing. Bammesk (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I personally don't understand the reluctance to support this image. I thought it would be pretty obvious per the nominated reason. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – EV is fine for me. Yann (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Vinícius O. (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I personally think it’s a very nice image of a very cute kitty. I don’t understand all the oppose votes. It represents the article well. Also, as the Herald stated, I don’t see how this nomination is any different from many of Charles nominations. Kentuckian |💬 05:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to promote. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]