Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg[edit]
Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg | Edit: Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg -- wau |
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Waugsberg. --wau 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Version 79b, not featured[edit]
- Support --wau 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 16:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose Maybe encyclopedic, maybe nice and sharp, but making a dissection to show some drone-larvaes is absolutely not wow! and not FP for me. Iam shure there is a much better or more creative way to show this. Maybe a drawing works better. DONT KILL ANIMALS! --Makro Freak talk 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously you know more about bold type than about beekeeping. The live of every colony of honeybees is threatened by varroa mites. If there are too many, the colony breaks down. Cutting off drone cells is a method many beekeepers use to reduce the number of varroa mites. As drones need 3 more days to develop in their cells than worker bees, the varroa mites prefer to lay their eggs in the drone cells where the number of varroa is 8 times as high as in worker cells. Therefore beekeepers make the queen lay much more drone eggs than needed using combs with drone cells. Once the cells are capped, they cut off the drone brood, thus removing a big part of the mites (see en:Varroa destructor#Behavioral methods). We do this to help the colony survive. As the drones had to be cut off for this reason, I think it to be acceptable to take pictures of them to show in a encyclopedia how the larvae and pupae develop. --wau 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if you overflood me with your expert informations and beeing bold to me (reason?), i dont like this picture because of the brutality. And as i said a drawing would work better in my eyes --Makro Freak talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Schon verstanden :) Hab dir das Wortspiel nur zurückgehaucht bold = frech --Makro Freak 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even if you overflood me with your expert informations and beeing bold to me (reason?), i dont like this picture because of the brutality. And as i said a drawing would work better in my eyes --Makro Freak talk 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Could a drawing be made without making a dissection? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Surely not, but there are some nice drawings out there like this --> [1] where the informations could be taken without a dissection --Makro Freak talk 07:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Could a drawing be made without making a dissection? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Why a different background on each side? And could the image be rotated a little? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why a bee keeper can't make up his own mind on this issue. If a beekeeper was going to euthenise the bees anyway, you might as well take the picture. I also wouldn't have a problem if this was done for the sole purpose of education, provided that the bees were not in a wild hive and that the owner of the bees consented. -- Ram-Man 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question What would be the difference if a veterinary opens a living dogs torso and show you some fetus, when its up his mind? --Makro Freak 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bees are lower order animals. Dogs are higher order animals. I think that makes a difference. While we shouldn't be indifferent to cruelty, there are too many problems in this world to attack them all with this level of emotional intensity. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Ben here: I swat the common housefly and don't feel guilty, I run over snails and worms with my car during rain storms and I'm not arrested. Destroying a native environment has certain moral issues, but if the bees are domestic there is no problem, even without the explanation above. If the example dog was "under the knife", proper anesthesia should be used of course. I'm certainly not advocating cruelty. Opening up a dog in a controlled, educational environment, such as a veterinarian school, is not going to be an issue, and when done properly it will not affect the dog's health. In your example, is it not the right of the owner to abort a dog's fetus if the owner wants to, just as neutering a pet would also be acceptable? (Also, I certainly do not imply that these rules apply to humans). -- Ram-Man 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- @ Makro Freak: My English is not perfect, but speaking of dissection I think of cutting off the heads and legs of the drones or cutting them in 2 parts to show what they are looking inside. What I did was opening the cells of wax where the drones are lying in without injuring them in any way. Sure, if I had asked them if they agree to do this, they might have answered the opposite way than Diogenes of Sinope: Please, don’t let the sunlight shine on us. If I had closed the cells again, they could have developed normally. To compare this with opening the body of a dog to show the young dogs inside is not a very fair argument I believe.
@ Ben Aveling: Of course the newspaper background at the right edge is not very nice, I was not sure if it is allowed to change this. Unfortunately I have no program to edit the picture at the moment. I'll see what I can do. By the way there is another version Image:Drohnenpuppen_79a.JPG that is less cropped. --wau 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)- Small edits such as rotating and cropping are OK. Larger edits are OK if you are honest about them in the description of the image. But in this case, I don't think an edit will help. If you rotate the picture until it is straight, you lose the bottom left hand corner. (As you can see in my thumbnail) If you have another version that is less cropped at the bottom, I can rotate that for you. (I use GIMP. It took a while to work out where the rotate function is, but it's there and it works and you can't complain about the price.) Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The term dissection is right. I dont said that you are dissected the drones, i meant the comb. But dissecting the comb means disturbing the development of the drones, ergo they have to die. --Makro Freak 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- @ Makro Freak: My English is not perfect, but speaking of dissection I think of cutting off the heads and legs of the drones or cutting them in 2 parts to show what they are looking inside. What I did was opening the cells of wax where the drones are lying in without injuring them in any way. Sure, if I had asked them if they agree to do this, they might have answered the opposite way than Diogenes of Sinope: Please, don’t let the sunlight shine on us. If I had closed the cells again, they could have developed normally. To compare this with opening the body of a dog to show the young dogs inside is not a very fair argument I believe.
- I don't want to support this picture, for the same reasons as Makro Freak.Anyhow, I think that the real owners of their lives are the bees themselves...Vassil 18 June 2007
- Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support First time I see that --Orlovic (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I am a strict vegetarian for more than half of my life and I have no ethical problems with this picture whatsoever. What would indeed be wrong is a contest of who can make the best photography of honeybee drone pupae - but that's not what we are seing here. What we are looking at here is the result of a beekeeper documenting his routine work. That kind of work does not need to be carried out often, but from time to time it is necessary. Just like a forester does not kill deer for fun, they sometimes have to in order to help the wood keep in balance. We humans have intervened with nature in ways so massively that we have basically forced ourselves to invervene again in order not keep our planet in shape. If this is reason for someone to stop eating honey or change their religion it is their decision, but please lets try to be objective and realistic when voting on pictures, and let's not forget the goal of the Wikipedia. I am supporting this picture for it's great detail and enourmous educational value. However, I, too, would like to see the picture rotated a bit and the blue border on the right removed. ---volty 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why you want to decide the issue? (your misinterpretated one) Its not a discussion about the usability or the enormous value nor anybody wants to delete this picture. Here is the poll for FP and the goal is to decide who is hot or not ;) and i dont like this picture because of its brutality, so what is unrealistic onto this opinion? Makro Freak
- Oppose --Wiki mouse 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose reflections of flash, tilt, composition --Simonizer 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Disgusting --Bergwolf 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A better picture could be taken, but at the moment, I believe this is the best picture we have on this important subject. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very relevant. Never seen before. Though the crop ccould be disussed. A "musthave" for wikipedia. --AM 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Question I think, it is better not to crop too much the right side. I prefer that the edges of the comb be visible. Would an edit like "Drohnenpuppen 79d" be acceptable? --wau 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think so, too. Right border doesn't attract so much attention now. --AM 16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Makro Freak. --Digitaldreamer 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Version 79d, featured[edit]
- Support Lovely, informative picture. Very essence of encyclopedic. I don't mind which version. Adam Cuerden 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) copied here from above as the vote is for both versions --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both. Prefer this version. Ben Aveling 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support I was waiting until the blue background was fixed. Really good picture. - Keta 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose You should apply the retouched picture template onto this version --Makro Freak talk 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both. Prefer this version. --AM 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
as above --Simonizer 17:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reflections of flash, harsh light --Simonizer 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- Question Above you wrote "reflections of flash, tilt, composition". I think this edit fixes two of those? Is the flash such a problem? The highlights seem minor to me, and they do show a lot about the texture of the creatures and their cells. Ben Aveling 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it does in my opinion. Dont get me wrong, the picture has great detail and surely has value. But there is something special missing that this picture needs to get a FP support from me. The picture dont cope with the fragile and delicate character of this creatures--Simonizer 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Question Above you wrote "reflections of flash, tilt, composition". I think this edit fixes two of those? Is the flash such a problem? The highlights seem minor to me, and they do show a lot about the texture of the creatures and their cells. Ben Aveling 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both versions. Extra high value. Vary good quality. Ss181292 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Bergwolf 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support Detailed and highly educational. As this was taken during normal beekeeper activities I have no moral issues with it -MichaD | Michael Apel 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 talk 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support both versions, prefer this one --wau 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Anrie 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Wiki mouse 21:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment ;) Ich gönne es dir trotzdem, Brutalinski! :) :) :) --Makro Freak talk 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)