- Comment - I would like to see this image used elsewhere. Its genus seems to have room for another image or two. Its family only has one image although the article is short. I am also curious whether Gondwana should have some text and illustration describing how some plants and animals that have descended from this era, have distribution patterns described as Gondwanan, meaning X (I don't exactly know what X should be). In addition, since both images show it sprouting from a log, it is either a parasite or detritivore, which might be aided by further illustration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it's fine where it is, now please use the talk page on the relevant article for this, and reserve this for comments about the quality of the picture and it's EV to the nom'd article... Gazhiley (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this image could be added to the genus article, but it would have practically no EV there, as the taxobox image is already the type species (as it should be) and this species does not illustrate anything in particular about the genus (such as bioluminesence). As such, it would be purely decorative. Your hopes to slip this into Gondwana are pretty wild. You are correct that this is saprotrophic, but I don't think we need to start ramming it into articles because of it- an awful lot of mushrooms are. In any case, I strongly, strongly doubt it could have more EV than in the manner in which it is currently used, so slipping it in elsewhere has pretty much zero to do with this nomination. The fact you're no longer opposing in these comments does not suddenly mean that they are less tiresome- you're really making no friends, and you're certainly not helping our process, or, in the majority of cases, the encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was not watching this page, so I missed your commentary. I am not a taxonomist or whatever the term is for people who do this lifeform stuff. I am actually more like the casual reader who would chance on this topic. I did not know what Gondwanan meant before chancing upon the link here. Although in your limited world of FPC a Gondwana placement might seem pretty wild, as a writer who writes a lot of articles wanting for images I think differently. Would the article be improved to have this image with a caption saying something like "Life forms, such as Mycena interrupta, that are descended from this Supercontinent and still only flourishing in its resulting continental masses are said to be Gondwanan"? Ask yourself whether that would help the article to see where I am coming from. As far as detritivore goes, it is a short article that has no illustration of plantlife examples. This image surely could augment that article. Thus, I think both of my suggestions would improve WP as tired as it might make you to ponder such thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to them, but lots of articles and EV don't make an isomorphism. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My "limited world of FPC"? Yeah, because I've never written anything about fungi- I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. Go away, Tony. J Milburn (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have issues with these additions Gondwana, Detritivore, they add no EV to those articles and for the most part is just cluttering them up. I would HIGHLY recommend removing the image from those articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree. There is definitely a home for lots of details on fungi in the article on detrivores (even a separate article, I would think) but there are better images for the illustration of that anyway. The usage in the other article is completely unwarranted. J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JM (or should I say Captain hater), get use to me. I am here to stay for a while (until WP:CHICAGO] and I run out of images to be evaluated). I think you guys are truly haters. I still am not sure I understand what Gondwanan distribution means in the article. The average reader may need a bit more to understand what is being illustrated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we're "haters," I think we're far more conscious of the effects of what happens when you overtly spam an image in articles where it really doesn't belong. I'm under the firm belief that an image has the MOST EV for a _very_ small sub-set of directly relevant articles for it, and usually for a species picture unless it's a type species, it's going to MOST LIKELY be just that species page. We also firmly believe that an image that is used in only one page is equally FP worthily as one used in 100, probably more so since the one used in 100 likely is not relevant to the vast majority of those. Your behavior here in my opinion is borderline disruptive, and likely if you continue down the road making comments like this in FP nominations your comments LIKELY will be bulk removed or put under a hat. You're welcome to contribute to the FP project work with us in a respectful and helpful way, you're also welcome to make suggestions to changing our policy, guidelines and rules on the talk page, but these continued comments like this in vote pages are disruptive and need to stop. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted your edit at detrivore. If you wish to remove the image please replace it with another FP of something other than an animal. The article needs something other than an animal as illustration and if it is to only have two images one should be non-animal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tweaking the WP:CAPTION. I would suggest a bacteria and a plant be added and the second animal be removed. I would place them all within Template:Multiple image. You know this area better than I and are qualified to find such examples.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll comment on that article's talk page, we really shouldn't be cluttering up the FP nomination! — raeky (talk | edits) 02:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also reverted your premature deletion of the image at Gondwana, I am still attempting to get the WP:CAPTION refined for maximal instructive value. Can the nominator explain the meaning of Gondwanan distribution more clearly either within this caption or in the article. This will give this image illustrative EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have again removed it, started a Talk page section to discuss it and informed you about it on the talk page to try to head 3RR off at the pass. This is NOT a good example of an image for Gondwanan distribution. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
