Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Touched by His Noodly Appendage 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Touched by His Noodly Appendage[edit]

This was originally nominated at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Touched by His Noodly Appendage. However, it's just too funny to go without being on the featured pictures list. It encapsulates everything you need to know about comical pictures, and if you want to have a better go at describing the value of this picture (which wouldn't be difficult), fire away!

If you want actual reasons to vote for the pic:

  1. It's a high quality image, 1600x1200, no compression artifacts etc.
  2. It is, quite simply, the best work of art that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It adds an informative value to the article Flying Spaghetti Monster as well: an article can be ambiguous about appearance, whereas this picture couldn't be if seen from 200 yards away.
  3. It's not biased by any point-of-view, it's pleasing to the eye in its accurate blending with the ceiling (and, as Shadow1 points out, a brilliant use of Photoshop), and most of all, it had me laughing on the floor and it's only extremely mildly obscene (if that).
  • Nominate and support. - haz (talk) e 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not only is it brilliantly funny, but it's a great example of Photoshop use. Shadow1 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Will (message ♪) 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - as a devout Pastafarian, I am grateful for this chance to spread our religion on, and ensure its survival in Pasterity. toresbe 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - I was a primary advocate for this image in the last nomination. But I think it is too soon to consider a repeat nomination. Debivort 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per last time --Fir0002 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose for all the same reasons as last time. I encourage others here to read the previous discussion. -- Moondigger 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Last nominated <1 2 months ago. In addition (FP criteria):
    • 1 The quality of the image is good the but quality of the painting is far from encyclopaedically significant on its own.
    • 5 "help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not." This image is a fan-produced tribute, and to me doesn't add anything to the articles over the other images. It's like FP-ing a company's billboard used to illustrate the company itself, especially since the black bars and slogan make the image less representational.
    • 7 "in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image" What is the subject? If it's the monster, why the black bars/slogan? The image is not primarily representational. So it needs to be demonstrated that the image itself is significant to FSM, parody religions, &c.
    • 8 "be neutral" This is a fan/promotional image. The obvious objection is Uncle Sam wants YOU, but that image is a depiction of the poster, which is itself highly significant.

I think this image offers wikipedia little over squillions of existing deviantart-esque pieces of fan art - a casual browser would be surprised to find something like it amongst the featured pictures. Again, please read the the previous nomination.• Leon 05:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last nomination was first signed 13 September and was closed on the 21st, thus making it exactly 2 months... but yes, admittedly it's not a great length of time. haz (talk) e 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I forgot about October :-P • Leon 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After reviewing the past discussion, I can see no convincing reason not to support. It is probably the most iconic image of an obviously encyclopedic topic. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper. Image quality is great. 72.241.12.8 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Forgot to sign in... Irongargoyle 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the image would be better without the caption in the image and a different descriptive caption. This caption is ridiculous Buphoff 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to the caption on this page, it is not the caption used in articles. The captions in Parody religion and Flying Spaghetti Monster are much more descriptive. Raven4x4x 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason as last time - Glaurung 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I might sympathize with the objectives of the Pastafarians, I see no aesthetical or encyclopedic value in this picture. For me it is just bad taste to mock the wonderful painting of Michelangelo this way. Alvesgaspar 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think this should have been nominated again so soon. I also think it would set a dangerous precedent if pictures designed purely to mock people's religious (or political or other strongly-held) beliefs were featured. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last time. I don't mind a picture with a strong point of view (and this happens MY point of view) but this picture just leaves me flat. In addition, I don't think Wikipedia is well served by speedy re-nominations. What's to keep somebody from nominating the same photo once a month? Are you waiting for different voters to come along? --Bridgecross 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although I supported it last time. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Hilarious, but not encyclopedic. Borisblue 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not going to make any difference, given the current consensus, but Strong Support. Absolutely hilarious, and I giggle every time I see it - 'touched by His noodly appendage', brilliant. Also linked with International Talk Like a Pirate Day, an official public holiday of pastafarianism. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not encyclopedic. Gphototalk 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As Vanderdecken pointed out, it's pretty useless to say anything with the current consensus, but still i support it. It a great picture. —PYMontpetit∴
Yes, I'm sure this is more encyclopedic.
  • Strong Support — I can't believe people can be so closed-minded. This image is not pushing any agenda. It is not saying "I want YOU for the U.S. Army." And give be a break about "not encyclopedic."
You seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia has a drawings featured picture category.
This image is well-drawn, meets quality standards, is free, and is very notable. If this image isn't encyclopedic, I think we need to redefine what the hell "encyclopedic" means in the featured picture criteria. ♠ SG →Talk 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Be of high quality. It should be sharp (Check) and of pleasing colour balance (Check), contrast and brightness (Check), free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files) (Check), burned-out highlights (Check), image noise ("graininess") (Check), and other distracting factors (Giant noodles and a naked man).
  2. Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. (Check)
  3. Be Wikipedia's best work. It should be a photograph, diagram, image (Check) or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work.
  4. Have a free license. It should be available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. (Check)
  5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. (Check)
  6. Be accurate. Supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page. (Check)
  7. Be pleasing to the eye. Taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture should make a reader want to know more. (Check!)
  8. Have a good caption. The picture should be displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. The image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page. (Check, Flying Spaghetti Monster has a good caption.)
  9. Be neutral, An image should not put forward a particular agenda or point of view, but instead should illustrate the subject objectively. Specifically images of maps should be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). (Check, not pushing any agenda.) ♠ SG →Talk 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Besides the more obvious reasons mentioned by others why this should not be included, I must add that this image is not at all pleasing to (my) eye. If people want to invent a fake deity (and it HAS been done before, people!) could they please try to cut down on the tentacle-and-googly-eye-ness. It gives me the willies. Spebudmak 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the whole point is that it is (if you'll excuse the language) a piss take. It's a joke - the ridiculousness of the FSM is the fact that it's a flying monster made of spaghetti and two meatballs, accentuated by the caption 'Touched by his noodly appendage'. As it says on the WP page itself: 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter on his website, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator that resembles spaghetti and meatballs called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for Pastafarianism to be taught in science classrooms, essentially invoking a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of intelligent design.' Please note the phrases 'parody religion' and 'reductio ad absurdum'. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SG, it would probably be best if you didn't run around calling those who disagree with your opinion "closed-minded." That said, I want to address some of your reasoning.
    • 1. Be of high quality. Frankly I find this to be of mediocre quality at best. The color palette of the FSM differs from the man's palette (referring to the "paints," not the pixels). Also, the FSM was clearly "painted" by somebody who lacks Michelangelo's talent and skill -- a noble attempt by an amateur, sure, but by comparison it's as if a child's drawing has been pasted into the middle of a masterpiece. (Of course, that's basically what's been done here, so the juxtaposition is not surprising.)
    • 3. Be Wikipedia's best work. You placed your "check" at the wrong spot -- yes, it's an image (of course), but I disagree that it's Wikipedia's best work. See #1.
    • 5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. This does that -- how? The concept is quite adequately explained in the text of the article. It's not as if somebody could read the article and still be confused, but then see this image and have an epiphany. "Oh, I didn't really get the idea of an invented deity, but then it all became clear when I saw the image." Sorry, it just doesn't comply with this criterion, despite your insistence that its encyclopedic value is obvious.
    • 7. Be pleasing to the eye. Another subjective one -- what's pleasing to your eye is not necessarily what's pleasing to others' eyes.
    • 9. Be neutral. This one was beaten to death already on the previous nomination. Suffice it to say your reasoning conflicts with my understanding of this criterion. Frankly I have no idea how you can possibly conclude that this is neutral when it is so blatantly non-neutral. If this is neutral because of its placement on an article describing the controversy, then the ninth criterion is meaningless and unenforceable for any image. -- Moondigger 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edit: FWIW, had I been around for the Wikipe-tan discussion, I would have opposed it as well, though not for all the same reasons. -- Moondigger 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        1. What, now the benchmark for featured pictures is Michaelangelo?
        3. The check was placed at the correct spot. It features Wikipedia's best work as an image. It's pleasing to the eye, and well-drawn in my opinion.
        5. As I mentioned in another response below, without actually coming out and saying "God doesn't exist," it shows opposition to intelligent design by creating a deity of its own, as there is no proof of any god whatsoever.
        7. I agree with you. But be honest; are you opposing this because you don't think it's pleasing to the eye, or because you believe it isn't NPOV?
        9. And again, I don't understand how it can be considered non-NPOV. It is not mocking anyone or any faith. Is it merely showing that since there is no proof of God, anyone can make up their own. To put it short, this is reductio ad absurdum. (We've featured propaganda images, too, by the way.) ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For the same reasons as before. POV image that shouldn't be on the front page. PPGMD 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per SG. It's a humorous work, not a deliberately POV image. NauticaShades 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator forgot to mention one last, but most important, requirement all pictures have to comply to before being promoted to FP: they must pass through this scrutiny and be approved (Not Check) - Alvesgaspar 10:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same reasons as before. (I was the nom in the first round.) --Billpg 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to SG, my biggest reason for strongly opposing is that it's a piece of fan art. The moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia is illustrating (left out of criteria 1 in his post) moe anthropomorphisms. This is not primarily illustrative in function at all, as evidenced by the caption. That was my thrust, closed minded though it may be • Leon 12:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Wikipe-tan isn't fan art? "Not fan-art" isn't one of the requirements for a featured picture. This image illustrates parody religion, FSM, and creator deity. Anyone familiar with the Michaelangelo work will realize that God has been replaced with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and thus, even without a caption, it perfectly illustrates modern-day opposition to intelligent design. ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for lollage. - Samsara (talk ·  contribs) 20:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exeedingly Strong Oppose My reasons:
  1. Parodie that insults other views. Not NPOV.
  2. Disrespectful to Michelangelo. Not a "real" work of art.
  3. "Touched By His Noodly Appendage" should not be in the picture.
  4. Should not be renominated so soon. (previous nomination.)
  5. Plain and Boring; not funny.
For these reasons I do oppose, as I did barely 2 months ago. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I'm sure Michelangelo would laugh at this, not feel insulted. Second of all, it being funny or not is comepletely subjective and unrealted to WP:WIAFP. NauticaShades 09:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How on earth can you be sure about such a thing??? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, you're right, funny depends on the individual (even though I've never laughed at this). Michelangelo, howevery, would almost surely have disliked this. (I think the reasons are obvious). | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you sure Michaelangelo would be insulted by this? I'm not agreeing with Nautica here and saying that he would laugh, but I'm pointing out that none of us here know Michaelangelo on a personal basis. Unless he actually came out and told us that this is disrespectful, then don't use that as an argument.
            "Touched By His Noodly Appendage" is an important part of the image. Why should that caption be removed?
            Now, this image is NOT mocking any religion, it is parodying the idea of creationism. Just so you don't call me an atheist, I believe that there is a god, but what PROOF do you have that our god isn't a giant flying spaghetti monster? Show me that proof, and I'll oppose this nomination. ♠ SG →Talk 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not an impressive picture. It depicts satire I suppose, but I don't see the encyclopedic value. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SG. --Splette :) How's my driving? 14:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. POV and uninformative; promoting this would be a minor embarrassment to Wikipedia. Anyway, this was renominated too soon and probably deserved a speedy close. Redquark 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as last time. –Outriggr § 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it still violates the NPOV portion of criteria 9, and I don't think it is going to stop doing so any time soon. --tjstrf talk 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per all oppose and comments made during the last discussion. This is POV, unencyclopedic and was renominated WAY too soon. --Nebular110 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - It is of the right dimensions, quality, and illustrates the subject in question. It's no more POV than a picture of Jesus supports the POV of his existence. Weak because it's not a particularily stunning image. Iorek85 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AndonicO. Not very encyclopedic, the image isn't even that great and it's POV. aviper2k7 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Unencyclopedic POV image. Sulfur 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not, IMHO, Wikipedia's best work (FP criterion 3), Pstuart84 17:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong SupportFor all reasons listed above-- I'm not going to repeat them! Jellocube27 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's a bit too fast to renominate. Plus, the image is not enclopedic and it doesn't make me want to know more. The rest is already said. --Arad 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per the comments of SG, which I was going to make myself before I saw he had done it more comprehensively. –– Lid(Talk) 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SG glossed over the substantial POV concerns with this image. Images don't allow for qualification from context the same way articles do, because of this a featured image essentially must avoid an anti-anything stance, even if it is only implied. For example, an article on Blood libel could be written in an npov manner while describing the views of blood libel's proponents. A blood libel poster on the other hand, could never be npov'ed without completely altering its content. (He also insulted Wikipe-tan.) --tjstrf talk 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it may illustrate the article, but it is not featured picture standard. In particular, the letterboxing is distracting. I can't see it looking good on the main page. Bob talk 10:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_2&oldid=1087754800"