Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hemeroplanes triptolemus MHNT CUT 2010 0 162 Cali Colombia Female dorsal.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2018 at 03:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hemeroplanes triptolemus - Dorsal side, Collection of the Mathematician Laurent Schwartz
  • Because I saw this photo in VIC and found it particularly pretty. But I don't really understand your question. Those other butterflies aren't very similar to this one. Should we stop giving the FP designation to shells because other shells have been FPs? How about views of mountains, is there a limit on those? Views with reflections in water? Views of buildings? Views of birds? In short, I don't accept the premise of your question. There are indeed other photos of mounted lepidoptera that merit FP status, but certainly, not all of them do, for the same reasons as any other category: Some are not as good technically, some are boring, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ikan. All four are separate species and by definition every species is inherently wiki-notable. There is no rule saying we can only have one FP per category. The only rule that comes close is "too similar" and since each of these is a different species I don't see a problem with each being an FP. PumpkinSky talk 04:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you voted to support that politician portrait and then, the candidature failed. Please also remember you revised your vote writing "I'll think about whether to change to neutral", invoking exactly the same reason than the one you are opposing to now, so please Ikan Kekek develop your idea and assume good faith. There are hundreds of equally good photos in this category, and 3 already are FPs. So why should we take this extra one ? Is it famous ? Is it aesthetically special ? Is it sharp like this ? I really want to learn -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that you are making a serious point, and I will try my best to discuss it in good faith. In the thread on the other nomination, I did say I would think about a similar argument. I found this photo aesthetically special, yes, and that's why I nominated it at this time. Thanks for offering an example for comparison. This doesn't look as sharp as that pupa, but this photo is about twice as big as that one. I think this photo is certainly interesting enough to be an FP, but if you feel that what will make the difference between a mounted lepidoptera FP and one that's not an FP is more outstanding sharpness than this, that's arguably overdoing things, but it could nevertheless be a valid argument. Do you have a sense of how many photos in this category are as interesting and relatively sharp as this one? What criteria would you suggest using in determining which ones to nominate or support? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think PumpkinSky you are overthinking this. Actually we treat photos of people, landscapes, animals, shells, camera lenses, etc differently. Some subjects can be photographed identically and we somehow remain interested while other subjects aren't going to retain our attention. Some of these repeat photos really need to be dribbled slowly onto FPC even if they look great. The art here is created by God, or whatever you believe in, and this kind of sterile photo only demonstrates technical competence. Doing that with a photo of a person, and especially with the dullest barely notable politician, is not going to get anyone going wow. To be honest, I'm not that fond of this kind of insect photo and can't remember the last time I supported a shell photo. That's not my cup of tea. -- Colin (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky The only person who ever mentioned rules is you, so the only person "overly focused on" them is you. Ikan and Basile have been discussing their opinions, and I noted my experience of FPC voting patterns, along with some opinions. Every time this issue is discussed, you seem to think there are rules. It really isn't possible to create some rule, or to try to fit analogies like "each politician is akin to a species" as though we had a rule for species. Voting patterns just are what they are, and what is permitted is simply the collective opinion at any time. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin you really need to look in a mirror. PumpkinSky talk 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination - My mistake, I still have 2 active nominations. Somehow, I miscounted. We can discuss these issues more somewhere else, like maybe on Commons Talk:Featured picture candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /PumpkinSky talk 20:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hemeroplanes_triptolemus_MHNT_CUT_2010_0_162_Cali_Colombia_Female_dorsal.jpg&oldid=274188333"