Gold dust day gecko at flower
- Reason
- An interesting behavior picture of a wild lizard, which shows one actually doing something and not just laying still. The image adds value to the articles it appears in.
- Proposed caption
- Gold dust day gecko is licking nectar from Strelitzia in Kona, Hawaii (island)
- Articles this image appears in
- Gold dust day gecko; Gecko, Lizard
- Creator
- Mbz1
- Support as nominator Mbz1 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great!, though personally, I would crop the right a little bit. Debivort 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit 3 Very interesting photograph. It's beautiful, but it's also encyclopedic of the gecko and the flower. Puddyglum 20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. If this is to be encyclopaedic, it definitely needs more info. The gecko is partly obscured, and the flower isn't in frame. So what's encyclopaedic here? This could be an WP on Commons, but probably not here.
Separa 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe part of the gecko's body is not seen, yet a viewer could see his tongue and his belly , which are not seen at any other pictures in the article. Should we oppose the picture of the whales down below because only their heads are seen or maybe you believe we should not have promoted this great image
because only the head of a male lion is seen? Would you like some more samples? The main subject of the image is a gecko, not the flower, and the gecko is in frame. Yet the image gives important information about the flower too by showing that it produces nectar, on which geckos feed. Besides, as I said in the image's introduction, it was a behavior shot, which in my opinion is very much encyclopedic and does add a value to the articles. If you believe the image is not encyclopedic, do you suggest removing it from the articles? I also wonder why is your signature seen in red color?Thanks.--
Mbz1 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- The red signature shows up as he's never created a userpage. -- jjron 04:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The other images illustrate unique or characteristic behaviours. I'm asking you to tell us more about the encyclopaedic value of this picture. Is the behaviour unique or defining of geckos, or this particular gecko? Could you make a case for including it in an article about the behaviour? As always, references to reliable sources would be useful to strengthen your case.
Separa 18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, Separa. If you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source, please read, for example
Gold dust day gecko article diet section, which describes in particular what and how Gold dust day geckos eat. I believe that the nominated image illustrates this section of the article with great details, adds value to the article and because of this is highly encyclopedic. I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--
Mbz1 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Please read WP:RS. Thank you. 129.215.191.74 10:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, Separa. If you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source, please read, for example
Gold dust day gecko article diet section, which describes in particular what and how Gold dust day geckos eat. I believe that the nominated image illustrates this section of the article with great details, adds value to the article and because of this is highly encyclopedic. I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--
Mbz1 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Maybe part of the gecko's body is not seen, yet a viewer could see his tongue and his belly , which are not seen at any other pictures in the article. Should we oppose the picture of the whales down below because only their heads are seen or maybe you believe we should not have promoted this great image
- I was also concerned that the "licking nectar" bit was unsourced. However, there are two sources at the bottom of the Gold dust day gecko, and the fact was in the article before Mbz1 added the image, that location on the bird of paradise is apparently where it has nectar, so I'm somewhat convinced that these geckos drink nectar. However, it is quite possible that the gecko is drinking water or doing something else, and a source would be nice. Enuja (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is that whatever source one takes, all of them say that
Gold dust day geckos lick nectar. Besides I believe my own observations is a reliable source. As you could imagine after I found the flower with a gecko on it I watched it for a while. I saw quite a few geckos at the flower licking necrar in a different positions at a different time:
;
. Of course I realize that you cannot trust me that I saw few geckos (and not just the same one). That's why one more image to share:
. The thing is these geckos were more afraid of each other than of my arm with my camera. That's why they did not came to the flower together, but they were all over the plant. Here's one more image, which shows more or less complete flower:
. I do have many more images. Should I upload all of them to Wikipedia? Btw, if somebody is going to Kona and is interested in seeing this behavior I could give exact directions how to find the flower, it is assuming it still in bloom. If it is not, no worries, there's always something in bloom in Hawaii and one could see geckos around flowers like for example this one
. One more picture of a gecko and an orchid
. Of course in this situation a gecko probably was not there for a nectar, I believe orchids have none, but rather to hunt for insects. --
Mbz1 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Well, the thing is that whatever source one takes, all of them say that
Gold dust day geckos lick nectar. Besides I believe my own observations is a reliable source. As you could imagine after I found the flower with a gecko on it I watched it for a while. I saw quite a few geckos at the flower licking necrar in a different positions at a different time:
- Question. I wonder if it would be possible for you to add some location information to this picture. It would be great if you took it in Madagascar, but I'm guessing you took it in Hawaii when you were doing the other ones? Also was it wild (like really wild), or in a zoo or wildlife park? (Not that any of this necessarily alters it's FPC status, it's just interesting to know.) --
jjron 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a valid question, Jiiron. I should have explained, where the image was taken. It was taken in
Kona,
Hawaii (island). The image was taken in the wild. The plant was growing up not even in a garden, but at somebody's private driveway at Ali Drive. Wat is interesting that I've been to Madagascar few years ago and I did see geckos here and there, but not nearly as many as I saw them in Hawaii.lol--
Mbz1 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Thanks. It might be good to add this location info to the image summary itself (so that it stays with the image). Yes, interesting about Madagascar, the article says they're an introduced species in Hawaii, so they may be running rampant as often happens with introduced species. --
jjron 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added the location information to the all versions of the image. Please, do not take my word about geckos at Madagascar as a reliable source. The thing is that I saw few geckos, two chameleons (male and female), many lemurs, but I spent most time there snorkeling.-- Mbz1 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Thanks. It might be good to add this location info to the image summary itself (so that it stays with the image). Yes, interesting about Madagascar, the article says they're an introduced species in Hawaii, so they may be running rampant as often happens with introduced species. --
jjron 07:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a valid question, Jiiron. I should have explained, where the image was taken. It was taken in
Kona,
Hawaii (island). The image was taken in the wild. The plant was growing up not even in a garden, but at somebody's private driveway at Ali Drive. Wat is interesting that I've been to Madagascar few years ago and I did see geckos here and there, but not nearly as many as I saw them in Hawaii.lol--
Mbz1 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support I really like the this image shoes the gecko from an interesting angle while it is engaged in activity. To me, it is much more important for the viewer to get an idea of the whole creature and how it moves than to have every square millimeter of the back or side showing. Seeing a gecko climbing on a flower, with the tip of the gecko's snout and the tip of its tail visible, tells the viewer what a gecko really looks like. It's not going to stop me from supporting, but what's the red dot near the center bottom of the image, and can it be edited out?
Enuja
(talk) 04:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Specifically, support edit 1; fir, what have you done to the colors in edit 2? I don't see an explanation of your first edit anywhere, although the colors look unrealistically super-saturated to me. Also, I oppose edit 3 as the dried stamen (?) is a part of the real scene, especially as the bird of paradise flower is specified in several captions.
Enuja
(talk) 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say the red dot could be some part of the plant. The plant is underxposed in order to show the gecko better and I believe that's why some part of the plant are lost, while the others are seen. In any case it could be edited out, but I'm not very good with photo shops.--
Mbz1 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Could someone point out exactly where this red dot is? I still can't see it, and I've even done edits on the picture (so it can't be anything too bad!). --
jjron 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that Enuja means a brown red something just below the blue part of the flower, but I could be wrong.--
Mbz1 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- The red dot has been cropped out in all but the original image (so it's really irrelevant now). That gives a good location, though; it's slightly to the left of the edit, just at the right edge of the very dim leaf in the background. Specifically, it's at around pixel 2246, 2240.
Enuja
(talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it now. It looks like a hotspot on the sensor, but it's faint. -- jjron 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The red dot has been cropped out in all but the original image (so it's really irrelevant now). That gives a good location, though; it's slightly to the left of the edit, just at the right edge of the very dim leaf in the background. Specifically, it's at around pixel 2246, 2240.
Enuja
(talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that Enuja means a brown red something just below the blue part of the flower, but I could be wrong.--
Mbz1 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Could someone point out exactly where this red dot is? I still can't see it, and I've even done edits on the picture (so it can't be anything too bad!). --
jjron 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say the red dot could be some part of the plant. The plant is underxposed in order to show the gecko better and I believe that's why some part of the plant are lost, while the others are seen. In any case it could be edited out, but I'm not very good with photo shops.--
Mbz1 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Edit1 uploaded. -- jjron 05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 (or Original if no one else likes the edit). I think the edit greatly improves composition, especially in thumbnail. Also makes some minor quality improvements. -- jjron 05:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 Wow, a little cropping can go a long way. – sgeureka t•c 05:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 by jjron; that is one cute lizard. The edit made it even cuter because there is more focus on the gecko, and like what Mbz1 stated in his reason, it is actually doing something. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Edit1 Very good crop, picture is wonderful. -- Shark face 217 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
is a much better picture.
pschemp |
talk 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, pschemp, for looking over all of the images I added to my comments. I doubt anybody else did.lol--
Mbz1 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I did in fact look at the pictures, and initially refrained from pointing out to you that the last picture you presented in support of your claim (which nobody actually disputed, we merely asked for references) shows not a gecko, but an anole. So much for reliable evidence. Best regards,
Separa 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much ,Separa, for letting me know who it was at the last picture. I just believed that it was a different kind of gecko.-- Mbz1 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- I did in fact look at the pictures, and initially refrained from pointing out to you that the last picture you presented in support of your claim (which nobody actually disputed, we merely asked for references) shows not a gecko, but an anole. So much for reliable evidence. Best regards,
Separa 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, pschemp, for looking over all of the images I added to my comments. I doubt anybody else did.lol--
Mbz1 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Support edit one: Great stuff, with the picture and the cropping. -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Gold dust day gecko at flower-edit1.jpg MER-C 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
