Commons:Valued image candidates/White-spotted rose beetles (Oxythyrea funesta) mating.jpg

White-spotted rose beetles (Oxythyrea funesta) mating.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Charles (talk) on 2017-06-30 21:14 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Oxythyrea funesta (White-spotted rose beetles) mating
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment - Though not as good a picture, File:Scarabaeidae - Oxythyrea funesta-1.JPG looks clearest at thumbnail size. Please tell me how I'm wrong, and I might be convinced. File:Croat fg092.jpg is also in scope, with the beetles bigger than in the photo you've nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Support Scarabaeidae - Oxythyrea funesta-1.JPG This Image is blurry and of poor quality. Croat fg092.jpg It is too dark and supersaturated. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Undoubtedly, but the only question at VIC, as I understand it, is what's clearest as a thumbnail. I will  Oppose for the sake of discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment I don't understnad this 'clearest at thumbnail'. Who thought that up and put it in the guidelines? Seems a ludicrous concept. At thumbnail size at my age, I can't even recognise a species. And thumbnail on what type of screen? It just doesn't make sense. File:Scarabaeidae - Oxythyrea funesta-1.JPG has bigger beetles beause it has been cropped to a small size file. Anyone can do that. Charles (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment - True. But isn't that nevertheless the standard used at VIC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC) I understand your possition and I know especially that you want to do well. But it is impossible for an insect and for the majority of animal species to recognize a species in Thumb. This criterion is inapplicable. To add constraints we kill this project. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Archaeodontosaurus, what guidelines do you think we should use for insect and most other animal photos? I need to have some more or less clear criteria to use, and I think we all do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC) It is related to the species. There is no normative value. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC) I agree. Common sense says as big as it needs to be for the viewer to identify all the key features. 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC). Charles (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Charles(?), your signature isn't showing up again. I don't really know what to do with this non-criterion, but I will simply cross out my "oppose" vote. My difficulty, though, is that the standards aren't supposed to be the same on VIC and QIC. I promoted this to QI without a moment's hesitation because it is a very good photo. That's not the sole question at VIC, and lacking guidelines for determining which photo is most useful is a problem. As I understand it, the reason we are supposed to consider the clarity of the scope at thumbnail size is because VIC is supposed to determine value for use as a thumbnail in articles on the web. So it seems problematic to stray from that mindset, but as I like this photo and agree that it's the best photo (as opposed to thumbnail) in scope, I don't feel motivated to further impede its progress. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) Why don't we change the guidelines, everyone? Charles (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Please make a proposal on the talk page. I forgot to change this nomination's status to "Supported". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)