Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dendroconus figulinus 01.JPG

File:Dendroconus figulinus 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 19:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Dendroconus figulinus 01.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dendroconus figulinus 01.JPG

Dendroconus figulinus, Conidae, Fig Cone; Length 8 cm; Originating from the Indo-West-Pacific.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Even though Benh hates your style (and might sometimes make a decent point). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yuh, I don't hate the style, and it's even pretty attractive. But when there are technical faults, one must mention them right (Since we can't trust you on this) ? And it's not like Llez can't repeat the shots easily. - Benh (talk)
  • No, I have criticized Llez's pieces that I thought might've been flawed before. The difference is that my primary approach is visual whereas you criticize from a technical ideal justification. For example in one case you claimed that, despite visual evidence that to me seemed to indicate otherwise I had provided, that a piece Llez nominated was unsharp merely and solely because of the technique that was used. It also seems a lot of your issues with Llez's pieces are that an even number of shots usually isn't used like you would prefer. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It really was unsharp in that case... And I justified because of the technique used. You're the one who thought that shooting at narrower aperture was enough to improve quality and DOF, the one who mistake perspective issue with architectural feature and the one who ask people to use measure unit that isn't provided... That's why I think you're not trustworthy as a FPC reviewer... and yet you dare looking down on others as making decent points. Where are we going ?? - Benh (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• And there you go again, posting more attacks and snobbish opinions like an expert, but not only were you unable to read my comment to W.S. about the image he linked on that candidate where I explained that I mistook that user's intention of adding that image like an alternate candidate, you continue to make quite loud your ignorance of issues that can occur with panoramic imagery that lead myself and another C:FPC user who's been around here far longer than you to make such a mistake. Oh, and, myself excluded, six people disagreed with you that the image was unsharp. You aren't making decent points and we wouldn't miss you if you left, you're just being smug, trollish, disruptive of polite conduct that we are accustomed to here, and I think that funny-looking bridge might be the only image you've ever supported anyway. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are skirting very close to personal attacks here IdLoveOne, please tone it down. I'm not sure who you mean by "we", but you certainly aren't speaking for all of the FPC community when you suggest that Ben should leave. Further, you may wish to check your facts: Ben has been here for quite a while, and has supported plenty of images in his time.--99of9 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• ...And what of Benh's attacks on me, 99? I try to be civil, but I do not apologize for what I said because he doesn't and it annoys me. Almost any other user here I can have polite disagreement with, but oh no, not Benh. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• None of the people mentioned that the image was sharp... and the people who were against clearly mentioned it was unsharp. Anyways... You can read any article you want about anything, nothing betters experience in my opinion. I believe I have some when it comes to panorama, whatever you might think, and the records speak for myself. The link you provide proves nothing about the Carcassonne FPC... and I'll risk myself into saying the other user you mention doesn't know much about panorama either. When you try to prove something at least check the facts better, as advised by 99. This isn't the first time you're a bit too quick to come to a conclusion. Benh (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wow... I wish I could know what it feels like to know everything. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support -- Such fantastic illustration can be helpfull to determine an exact species! Thank you very much! (You have really a huge collection, haven´t you :-)?)H. Krisp (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support with pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cephas (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Boring and by now trivial composition. You want an FP of every shell on earth? There seem to be over 60000 different snails alone! W.S. 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same. As already mentioned in my previous assessments, are we going to feature all shells out there ?. If at least they were properly shot... Here however, quality is acceptable (I still think there's focus issues on two first views) and lighting seems a bit better. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. Let's limit the shell pictures to 5 per year! As there exist 4 times as many gastropod species as birds, not more than 2 pictures of birds can be allowed to be nominated per year. And Homo sapiens is only a single species. In relation, not more than one single picture of a human being every hundred years! ;-) -- Llez (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, but these shells are empty...I would love to see them full and in their natural environment.These are not fossils. --Citron (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • They still have EV on their own and look nice. Might also be weirder to get the multiple angles unless Llez just did one POV.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Certainly. But for me a gastropod isn't only a beautiful shell.--Citron (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • If you have a look on the recently featured Picture of a Fingerprint Cowrie you can see, that the shell is completely covered by tissue, it isn't visible! And this is the case in many marine species. You can't make photos of the shell of many species when they are alive, and you can't "see them full and in their natural environment". Nevertheless, a shell is very important for taxonomy, visible or not in living specimens. So it is quite different to photograph shells and to photograph living animals. It always depends, what you want to show. I photograph shells, there are other photographers, which make pictures of living gastropods. We need both on Commons! --Llez (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Ggia (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support —stay (sic)! 07:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --shizhao (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals