Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Joey 2.jpg

Juvenile Bennett's Wallaby[edit]

Reason: Extremely cute. The bracken ferns behind give good scale for those familiar with the species.
Articles this image appears in: Red-necked Wallaby
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely creature, but isn't it a youngster? The pouch is not also not shown...--Caspian blue 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Juvenile is plastered all over the article and this nomination, so yes it is. Only females have pouches... Noodle snacks (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Silly me, I thought "Juvenile Bennett's Wallaby" is another common English name for the species because of even the adult having an ingenuous face like the child (thought what an unusual name it is).--Caspian blue 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I wish I could own such a cute critter. Sir Wolf (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good capture, and pleasing background. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "27 February 2008" - is that correct? I do not find that the image is self explanatory, because I am wondering where the mother kangaroo is and the image description does not say. Is it too big to jump back in the mothers pouch? Was the kangaroo in the wild? Snowman (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, it was nov 26 (I have updated the description). Too big for mum (maybe 50% the size of an adult). Wild wallaby yes. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The date differences are confusing. I think that the discrepancy between the dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed that it is a little confusing, but the date at the bottom of the image page is derived from the image's EXIF data, which the camera 'imprints' at the time the photo was taken. I guess the date on the camera was incorrect when the photo was taken. It is possible to fix this EXIF data on the image itself (I assume it would require a re-upload of the image), but I don't think the date discrepancy is of any major significance to the nomination. The EXIF is what I would consider 'value-add'. The info in the template is what I would assume to be correct. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering that this is being nominated for FP, I think that there certainly should not be an unexplained discrepancy between dates in the image description and metadata. It probably only needs a simple note adding to explain that the date in the camera metadata is wrong. Snowman (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If it does not go back in the mother's pouch, is it wrong to call it a joey? The page Joey (marsupial) says a joey is an infant, but the one in the photograph is too big to go back in the pouch, so it is presumably more like a toddler and not an infant (or a joey). Snowman (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But the question really is this: Does it significantly affect the value of the image if we don't know the correct date that it was taken? I'm not suggesting he should ignore your request to clear up the confusion over the date, but I am suggesting it isn't important for the nomination. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To me it is obvious that mixed-up dates is a problem for an FP, which is described as the finest on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't so sure regarding the joey thing (so I said juvenile in the articles). I can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get it renamed at commons though. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Oppose~~ For a kangaroo at the "toddler stage" (always out of the mother's pouch), there is uncertainty about using the word Joey, which is mentioned the file name ~~and image description~~. The dates mentioned in the image description and camera metadata are different and confusing. Surely this is not the finest on the wiki. Does the FP project have standards about these sort of things? Snowman (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't help that the internal battery on my camera went flat. I could remove the EXIF if you are still getting confused. The description now says juvenile (the article always has). It still meets the definition of Joey given at any dictionary. Criterion 7 has details for the caption (which this image satisfies). I don't think your oppose really holds much water. UpstateNYer might be able to rename the image. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not at all, I think that it should be described as a joey or a juvenile with more certainty. It is called a joey in the file name and a juvenile in the image description. Also the dates are different and confusing. To reduce confusion, I think that it would be appropriate to add that the date in the camera metadata is wrong somewhere on the file. Is any of the other camera metadata wrong? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rest of the metadata is fine. I've renamed the image the hard way for you - though joey is synonymous according to the dictionary. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To be honest I think that it is not that difficult to do another upload. Anyway, there is no doubt that names are consistent now. Snowman (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, for one image, but I have on the order of hundreds with the wrong name (stuff that has been later identified). It also leaves duplicates and you have to go and update the articles by hand. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Anyway, one more does not make much difference surely. I have tidied up and asked for the duplicate to be deleted. If there is no hurry to get a file renamed, you can request a bot assisted file rename. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        For your information about file renaming. {{rename needs confirmation|new-name.jpg|reason}} is the format to add to a file for bot assisted (semi-automated) rename. This will start a process of administrator guided semi-automated creation of new good name file, deletion of old bad name file, and switching to show correct name file on all the language wikis. The process is in stages and can take two or three weeks. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've tried that. It is generally broken in my experience. Sometimes the rename fails, sometimes it is successful but can't change the articles (then it deletes the original leaving articles in a mess). Commons really needs the "rename" button for general use rather than having to jump through hurdles to get things done. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I suspect that a rename button will be too inviting for vandals to cause havoc, so I think that a move function is rightly a protected function. I find that the semi-automated administrator guided rename system generally works satisfactorily and I have used it scores of times. Perhaps it sometimes takes longer than 2 to 3 weeks. Snowman (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sometimes their are only adults to photograph, so a picture of a juvenile will be of benefit to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can I have one? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Juvenile 2.jpg --jjron (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]