Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2007

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


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Image:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg

[edit]
Pupae of honeybee drones Pupae of honeybee drones
Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg Edit: Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg -- wau


[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Anmerkung: bold type = Fettdruck --wau 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schon verstanden :) Hab dir das Wortspiel nur zurückgehaucht bold = frech --Makro Freak 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Why a different background on each side? And could the image be rotated a little? Ben Aveling 21:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something more like this? (OK, this is too small, and cropped too closely, but I just want to show that it looks better rotated, and without that blue on the right.)
  •  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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Maybe you are the ethic-specialists ... for those its a thing, for me not, thats all. --Makro Freak 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
      • 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
  •  Support First time I see that --Orlovic (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Oppose reflections of flash, tilt, composition --Simonizer 06:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Disgusting --Bergwolf 09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Support Very relevant. Never seen before. Though the crop ccould be disussed. A "musthave" for wikipedia. --AM 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply] 

result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Male juvenile imago of Calopteryx virgo. 

result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

diagram of the main parts of a generic Mature flower 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Note that to make the image show correctly with Commons thumbnails, I have just edited it to remove the Adobe Illustrator specific extensions (only needed for its internal editing options) and notably the internal DTD definition of XML named entities for the namespaces, and the <switch> that hides the effective SVG graphic to use only these private extensions after it. With this change, we have a standard SVG. Nothing was changed in the image itself (whose source remains in the hstory if one needs to reedit it). This was necessary in order to have the image displayed on the Commons frontpage or in other wiki projects, independantly of its effective display size, by using the thumbnail resizing features of the Commons image server. Note also that the internal radial gradients generated by AI are not supported in thumbnails... Verdy p 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Styracosaurus was a genus of herbivorous ceratopsian dinosaur from the Cretaceous Period 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Zedazeni Monastery in Georgia Zedazeni Monastery in Georgia

[edit]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 InfoI propose an edit; it was very easy to remove the stain and the aircraft contrail.Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Vassil 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't like the composition which seems too symmetrical and a little boring. Also, there is a slight (and disturbing) ccw tilt, which has nothing to do with the slope of the terrain. Finally, I agree with Simonizer on the overexposure. Alvesgaspar 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Dear Vassil, thanks a lot, I was not sure if we could use photoshop. As for the exposure, I think it is more of a difference in taste of art rather than anything else. I think it is good and so does User:Vassil, who I think has a good taste of art judging from the pictures he uploaded on Commons (Louvre, Cathédrale Notre Dame de Reims, Medieval festival, etc.) Sosomk 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you very much, Sosomk.I agree that this picture isn't spectacular at first sight, but I like it because it's sharp and representative, and the lamb fits in well with this rustic architecture.About the exposure, I've tried "automatic contrast" and "automatic levels" in Photoshop and nothing moved, so I've let the original exposure.(I know that "automatic levels" isn't unfailing, but it's an indication in normal light conditions.) I don't know about the tilt; the building and especially the roof are asymmetrical. Vassil 08:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The architecture is called Basilica style, which is ancient and early medieval church architecture of Georgia. Also, the monastery is surrounded with the gate. Sosomk 19:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose still overexposed and that has nothing to do with art, because i can see no intention that the author wanted to make some kind of High Key picture --Simonizer 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find the picture great because of the contrast of the lamb (the symbol of Christianity) and the Church, and that's what the author has done to make it professional. Sosomk 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thats a good idea, but a good idea is often not enough --Simonizer 07:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Stadtkirche & Oberer See Böblingen

 MichaD | Michael Apel 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply] 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bellis perennis

EXAMPLE: This similar image has perfect DoF
EXAMPLE: Proper DoF covers every part of the flower. Even at the too shallow f/7.1 on this image, you can see detail in every petal.
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

lost river Trebisnjica 

result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Topographic map in French of the Pyrenees mountains

  • « no scale in the map  » : well, looking at your nice work, I imagine that you know that a scale on a digital map doesn't represent lot of things : I may write that it is a 1:500.000 scale (for example), but in this "1 unit" (cm, inches, etc.), will you have a strait line or curves ? Two maps of the same size may give the same scale, but not with the same accuracy. Secondarily, do you know many paper maps giving the scale under the 1:xxx.xxx form plus the distance scale ?
  • « no indication of the map projection » : for sure, you didn't read the complete summary, where it is written : « UTM projection ; WGS84 geoid ». I do not know until now in Wikipedia (but of course, I don't know them all) a topographic map giving both the information of projection and the geoid used.
  • Please explain for the incomplete legend. Sting 04:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info - I would call this a “general reference map” (like those on the atlases), rather than a “topographic map”, due to the relatively small detail and high level of cartographic generalization. I have enlarged it to a scale of about 1: 1 million, which appears to be a more than reasonable upper limit of use. Even at this scale the information density is quite small when compared to a common atlas’ map (for example, the cities shouldn’t be represented with dot symbols at this scale). Also, this is not a true digital map, comparable with Google Maps, since the level of generalization doesn’t change with scale. This might indeed be useful as a printed map. But for that purpose, a numerical scale is needed, besides the graphical one. Please note that a map is not just a beautiful drawing that we can reduce or enlarge at will. All printed maps always have a nominal scale associated with it, which is closely related to the spatial and thematic accuracy of the information depicted, and to its level of cartographic generalization. In paper maps, the length of 0,25mm (which is the typical thickness of a thin line) is normally taken as a reference for planimetric accuracy. In a map with a scale of 1:50 000, this means that the horizontal accuracy of the survey was, at least, 0.25 x 50 000 = 12 500mm = 12.5 m. In other words, it is guaranteed that the error in the position of all objects depicted in the map is less than 12,5m. When we enlarge that map by a factor of 10, keeping the line width of 0,25mm, we are implicitly assuming that the horizontal accuracy is 1,25m, which is wrong. And when the nominal scale of the map is not even stated, the map becomes useless for anything other than trivial applications. That is precisely the problem with the svg format.
OK, I understand now what you meant by « scale ». In fact it would be more about the accuracy of the drawing. For further discussion about this point, please refer to the post I leaved in your discussion page.
  • I really mean "scale", not accuracy. The map should contain a indication on the the maximum scale to be used in printed versions (together with the corresponding paper dimensions) - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, zooming in the map with a ratio over 1:1 will not give more information, it will just make it more legible, as for a raster image. It's also true that it's not a « pure » topographic map in which everything is in scale. Here, the river lines doesn't represent their true width and, like you wrote, the cities should be represented with their real area, but for all that, the scale should be much bigger and it would be impossible to represent the whole area. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a "pure topographic map" exageration is also used in the thickness of lines in order to make certain objects visible or more conspicuous, that is not the point. To be truly "topographic" much more information should be depicted and the "working scale" should be much larger than this map permits. Anyway, even at 1:3,000,000 (which is a reasonable printing scale for this map), area symbols (instead of point symbols) should be used to represent cities (at least, the bigger ones). - Alvesgaspar 11:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your map, the legend is not complete because it does not contain all the types of symbols used in the representation. The indication of the map projection should be present in the map itself, not only in the Commons file. Remember that many pictures are used in non-wiki projects. Finally, the WGS84 is not a “geoid” but a geodetic reference system (containing, in particular, the definition of the “ellipsoid” used ). - Alvesgaspar 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the legend, I thought the signification of the three lines were almost trivial, but all right, I added them. About the projection information directly on the map, I think it's a point of view. I created this map (and the others) first for WP and the complementary information is in the description page. If a third party wants to use it in a correct way, they should take what they need also from the description page and not only the image, as they should with the license and the author name. I think also adding too much information not indispensable for a direct understanding of the map would unnecessarily complicate the key, so I left them in the description page (sometimes, there's not much space left on the map). About « geoid », sorry, my mistake : I made a shortcut between the reference frame and the geoid it tends to represent. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sting 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info New version uploaded with the borders and projection info in the key and major cities areas. The description page was completed with indication of the data accuracy. Sting 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Blue wooden bench

 Question It's not "yet another animal pic". Whats the problem with benches??? --Jeses 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i forgot to say that it is just a bench with a leaf on it and author gives no informations about context. --Makro Freak 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Phlomis russeliana with insect 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Photinia fraseri flowering Photinia fraseri flowering

Left image, not featured: 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right image, not featured: 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Yamabiko dome 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 07:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Solar radiation has a lower intensity in polar regions because it travels a longer distance through the atmosphere, and is spread across a larger surface area. v3: Northern Winter v4: Spring/Autumn

  •  Info created by Pengo - uploaded by Pengo - nominated by Cacophony --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second diagram (03) shows Northern Winter tilt, and the last (04) attempts a Spring/Autumn tilt, although it's probably not enough of one.
  •  Support I think it elegantly illustrates a simple concept that has major effects to the world that we live in. --Cacophony 07:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Unfortunately, the concept is not that simple, and this image is in my view very misleading. It doesn't show the earth's angled rotation axis, and seems to imply that the sun's rays are always parallel to the equator, which is not the case due to the oblique angle the axis makes with the plane of the earth's motion around the sun. The text even states that "Solar radiation in tropical areas (i.e. lower latitudes, nearer the equator) has vertical rays", which as a general unqualified statement is simply wrong (it happens at local noon only twice a year). To explain the effect properly you'd need at least to mention if not show both time of day and seasonal effects. Also, the fake landmass worries me; why not a real outline? --MichaelMaggs 08:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. The diagram is to show why the poles are colder than the equator, so I'm not sure how adding axial tilt would do anything but confuse things. I've changed the text to note this simplification, and to say "more vertical" (if that's a term) rather than just "vertical". I didn't use real land mass because it's too hard to find a picture of the Earth with the equator in the middle, let alone in svg or at the right level of detail; and i wanted to the avoid the politics of choosing which side of the Earth was facing the viewer. The time of day being noon is implied by positions of the sun and Earth and the areas of focus. Pengo 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose i do think you should tilt the equator line, remove the outline of the atmosphere ( wich gives the impresion of being solid) , also remove the yellow scale at the size it gives really no extra information. and the arrow heads in the sollar rays are not really necesary either -LadyofHats 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've incorporated your suggestions, and attempted a couple of different "tilts". I'm still not sure they help at all other than to confuse matters by introducing seasons.
  •  Oppose - 1st: This is not the best way to illustrate the concept; 2nd: that is not the only reason why the poles are colder than the equator, and 3rd: the picture is misleading, like MichaelMaggs said. To show that the altitude of the sun above the horizon has a strong influence on the flux of energy at the surface I would prefer to depict a flat ground, with two similiar "cylinders of rays" coming from different angles. - Alvesgaspar 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what other reasons are the poles colder other than axial tilt? The cylinders of rays is a different way (not a "better way"), and would make it difficult to show the rays have to travel further through the atmosphere. Although it doesn't change anything, please note also that this diagram that I seem to be defending now isn't completely my own design, but is based on those found in a couple of textbooks. Pengo 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - Here is a picture illustrating what I mean, from the time I was teaching these things (sorry to be in Portuguese). The angle of incidence of the rays, combined with the albedo of the surface has also a strong influence on the amount of energy being absorbed (or reflected) at the surface. In the ice-covered polar zones, almost all direct energy from the sun is reflected because it is white and the angle is small. In short, the angle of incidence affects the heating of the surface in 3 different ways: lenght of atmospheric track, variable flux and variable reflection. - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Position J2000.0 of the 6000 brightest stars

  •  Info created by Manuel Strehl - uploaded by Manuel Strehl - nominated by Manuel Strehl --Manuel (Diskussion) 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is a rasterized version of the SVG file Sky.svg. The SVG however relies on CSS to style the stars (much smaller file size!), which is not yet handled properly by the KSVG renderer of the Commons.
  •  Comment - Impressive and useful work. But the sky map should be explained with a comprehensive legend (colours, sizes/magnitudes, symbols, celestial circles,...) and the constelations also represented. To further simplify the reading, I would also put the names of the larger magnitude stars. The map projection should be identified in the map (I suppose this is an azimuthal equidistant projection). Not being svg doesn't bother me, it is well known that the Commons renderer doesn't work properly. - Alvesgaspar 08:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Agamemmnon mask 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Large Yellow Underwing

Do you have any technical critique? Its hard to argue about or inproove in the wow-factor. Its wow to me - hence the nomination :-) --Malene Thyssen 17:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uargh .. why I must write an essay. Because as you are: In my imagination I see a dead, bit blurry "Eulenfalter" from behind with a snapped off and a twisted antenna, placed very classical on a bark somewhen at noon. And then i stare at this picture and try to see something which is arcane for my eyes, but I cannot find anything which touches me. The texture of the wings ? The type of the sere moss ? The butterfly itself ? Are iam so fuc-beep-up that i cannot find any ? I think iam, sorry. The technical achievement is ok, like i anticipate when viewing your userpage-gallery, as far my businesslike appraisal. Ok now i try to see it from the more abstract side. Is it a persiflage ? Is it a mirror ? Is it a --Makro Freak talk 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)?[reply]
Oh sorry Makro Freak, I didn't mean for you to write an essay and explain why you didn't find the "wow" in the picture. I definitely respect your judgement in that aspect, since thats absolutely individually - and should be. I was just wondering if something technically was wrong since Bergwolf wrote "Let's raise the bar?". Regards --Malene Thyssen 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lets raise the bar on Insect pictures" was a quote by Alvesgaspar and Bergwolf must have taken that literally --Makro Freak talk 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - thanks for clearing that up for me. --Malene Thyssen 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Let's raise the bar....
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Argynnis pandora

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** dream on ;) This are smoothing software artefacts --Makro Freak talk 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC) This critter is hairy! --Makro Freak 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Brown Pelican

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Une guêpe (wasp) sur son nid

The eye is clearly not in-focus --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Do you prefer this one ? But the "noise" is exactly the same. J-Luc

Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the details in the wasp, including the black "eyes", you over-expose the nest. The subject is lit by the sun in a very dark environment.--J-Luc
Then you have to shoot it at a different time of day, shade it, use reflectors, flash(es) or whatever...
Not saying it's a bad picture, but with current common standard for macro pictures I don't think that's a valid excuse --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aeshna cyanea and Exuvie

  • No, not QI. QI is about technical quality. This picture has some wow value, but QI doesn't take that into account, at least, it's much less important. Whereas for an FP, "wow factor" is the most important thing, which is why a small number of pictures pass FP but not QI. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack MFreak --Bergwolf 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freudenberg sg Switzerland.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Original FP Improved Version Colors cooled

  •  Info I think this image which has been featured recently had a better edit which never had enough time to get enough votes. So here i propose replacing the original with this edit. I also made an edit in which the colors are not so warm. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist Replace one of the two. I go with majority. --Arad 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You postet the edit at the 14th of June, I determined the result at 24th of June. So there has been enough time! --Simonizer 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm tired of this. It's obvious that Edit one is much better than the original. So I'll just upload it on the FP one. --216.221.35.113 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 12:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Polo ponies 

result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Aloutta caraya Aloutta caraya

[edit]
Please say why. --MichaelMaggs 13:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
I think overexposure in general doesn't have to be a problem. Some photos are impossible to take without overexposure and I think in this photo it is not really disturbing...well and if it is then I give up :-) --AngMoKio 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever tried to do a exposure-array for a DRI Image? The object seems very static, think that works. --Makro Freak talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hm...yeah in this situation it might have been a good idea. Though i have to say I dont have any experience so far in creating HDR images. But I like that photo despite the overexposed areas. --AngMoKio 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tavira Igreja Santiago.jpg

[edit]

Short description Short description

[edit]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I propose an edit:I've removed the guy, cropped because of the car, I've increased the sky's luminosity, and its saturation to balance the effect, and I've smoothed it. Vassil 14:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I smoothed the sky again with the gaussian blur. Vassil 14:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

a hibiscus flower 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bug

plus his left middle foot is cropped --Makro Freak 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wright brothers 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Support I love Lake Merrit and this is a good picture, i disagree that this is a too common skyline. Seriously, it's Oakland I rarely see pictures of the Oakland Skyline. Nice Detail too. He Who Laughs Last 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Salmonella 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Varieties of soybeans

Soybeans are practically as much a part of American life as baseball. They're grown today in more than half the United States. Yet, a hundred years ago, they were virtually unheard of-raised only by a handful of innovative farmers. These seeds, from the National Soybean Germplasm Collection housed at Urbana, Illinois, show a wide range of colors, sizes, and shapes. 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Zwiebelrostbraten 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Mungo Martin House

  • The reason is so that you can see the tool marks and fine details in this hand made building face and totem poles. My camera also cannot do a wide enough angle, and I cannot stand in a busy street to take this. You are welcome to add any relevant warning. HighInBC 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. --Digon3 talk 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hydrangea macrophylla 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

#1Hydrangea macrophylla #2Cropped version 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It was a Canon EFS 17-55mm. --MichaelMaggs 07:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

If you say so --Makro Freak 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lactoria cornuta.0 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Lactoria cornuta.401 - Aquarium Finisterrae.jpg 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ferrofluid in magnetic field.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Delisting candidate: Ferrofluid in a magnetic field

  •  Info When I first nominated the image, it was the only qualifying example of a ferrofluid on the Commons. I'm sure it was mostly its "coolness" factor that pushed it through despite numerous technical problems (blown highlights, fuzziness at the back, messy background.) Happily, the nomination seemed to push User:Gmaxwell into uploading high-res versions of his ferrofluid photographs, one of which is now also featured. With so many high-quality, high-res alternatives now available, and with recent upscaling of FPC requirements, I feel the version I uploaded really shouldn't keep its tag. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- At least I can say I had one of my uploads featured for a whole year :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist only because of low resolution. Except for resolution, I like this one better than the other FP. I almost voted "keep", as this isn't an obvious delisting. -- Ram-Man 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist --MichaelMaggs 21:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 07:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The coat of arms of the British Antartic Territory vectorized version 

result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment How could this image become featured without source information? This nomination says that it is based on [5] so this is clearly a derivative work. But the image description does not mention the original image or its copyright status. /90.229.135.239 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Support --Wiki mouse 18:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

inside of the vatican museums 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Detail of a Porsche car

actually i chose it bcs i think the photo looks better in b/w --AngMoKio 18:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your general opinion of the composition. I'd be happy to get a feedback concerning that. Concerning the overexposure I think it is not disturbing here - but I know tastes are different :) --AngMoKio 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, tastes are different. Here it was not my taste to decline this nice picture, it was more a aspect to decline any overexposure for FP. In general the idea is great to make some "retro" ambiente with this car, but what disturbed me a little was the title. You wrote Porsche detail in the header. When i was searching for details i found a blurry Porsche sign where i can not propperly read Stuttgart on it. So the only detail is the chrome frame of the light, surrounded by a overexposured fender. So what would you decide? --Makro Freak talk 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. In general I agree with you - my photo is not in a high-end quality. I chose detail in the title as it doesn't show the whole car but a detail of it. But I think that we have a severe lack of good compositions in the FPCs...that's why I think photos shouldn't get opposed bcs of some minor technical flaws. For example your really great photo Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg has a front focus but it became a FP and I definitely agree with it bcs the photo has simply a great content, then i can ignore some technical flaws. But this should be true for all kind of photos. I don't want to say that my photo has a perfect composition - I only tried my best. It may even be that the technical flaw in my photo is really too big. But to oppose without even a comment about the composition is in my opinion not fair and also not helpful. Ok that was what I wanted to say :) --AngMoKio 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture as a example Image:Sicus_ferrugineus_side.jpg had no big support (less than 10) because of that. Can i see your picture in color ? I would see if i was wrong with my opinion --Makro Freak talk 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway your photo became FP - that's what matters and it is ok like that (as it should be with other photos with minor technical flaws too). I can give you the original photo though i don't question your statement about the photo --AngMoKio 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aber jetzt mal ehrlich ... findest du nicht auch das dieses Bild oder der Affe im Vergleich zu deinen bisherigen, schönen FP Bildern stark abfallen? Für jedes erworbene FP Bild in deiner Gallerie (ein jedes fast perfekt) hätte ich dir einen dicken Support gegeben wenn ich damals schon dabei gewesen wäre. Sicher ist das bitter wenn eine großartige Arbeit den Bach heruntergeht, bin mir aber sicher das du bald mit etwas Großem anrückst! --Makro Freak talk 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naja...ich sach mal mir gefallen die schon, sonst hätte ich sie nicht hier rein gestellt. Es ging mir aber eigentlich etwas ums Prinzip, da mir eine gute Komposition immer am wichtigsten ist. Ich finde es halt immer etwas schade, wenn man ein oppose-overexposed vorgesetzt bekommt obwohl das Bild ansich vielleicht ganz gut ist. Zumindest ein Kommentar könnte man dazu abgeben. Ich will hier auch nicht meine Bilder durchkämpfen...mit dem was hier entschieden wird kann ich leben und akzeptiere das auch. Grundsätzlich fände ich halt längere Statements zu den Bildern (speziell bei oppose) besser. Aber keine Sorge ich werde hier noch ganz großartige Bilder reinstellen! ;-) --AngMoKio 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Das will ich aber auch hoffen, du! :) :U :)--Makro Freak talk 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Along the River During Qingming Festival 

result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hydrangea Macrophylla

When withdrawing support, please strike out the original votes (as I've done above). Otherwise it makes life very difficult for whoever has to close the nomination. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MichaelMaggs. It would be nice just to strike out the support vote and make a oppose vote instead. Counting the votes is much easier so --Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Callistemon flower shot, cropped and enhanced. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Amadina erythrocephala

Do you still satisfied your desire for revenge? I thought you are more firm. When I can see more pictures from Namibia? --Makro Freak talk 20:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured.  Simonizer 08:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Elephant Beetle Edit 1 by Fir0002

[edit]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Version, not feartured

[edit]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Short description Short description
Original version Version with noise reduction
[edit]
  •  Info created and uploaded by J-Luc - nominated by J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --J-Luc 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info The same wasp, taken this afternoon. I have tried to take care about the noise (400ASA), the sun (taken in the shadow), the composition. Made 100, kept only 1... :-)
  •  Support Vassil 23:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--João Carvalho 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really like this picture, especially the colors. I can not understand why you cutted the wing. In my eyes the cutted wing destroys the whole picture. A hard decission for me. --Makro Freak 08:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I have used a tripod, it was centered on the wasp "looking" at me. Suddendly, she took this position and I was happy to have it "3/4" but did not have the time to unscrew/reposition the tripod, I "forced" the tripod to change the composition and I took care not to crop the antennas (first plane) but sorry for the wing. Ok for the "noise" but I don't see a lot of noise on the EOS20D at 400ISO...

See reponse below... (J-Luc) 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version with noise reduction, not fearured

[edit]

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A vector CD. 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Getúlio Vargas (center) and his followers pictured by Claro Jansson during their short stay in Itararé São Paulo) on the way to Rio de Janeiro after the successful Brazilian Revolution of 1930.

 Question Dear Dantadd, why you think this should be a FP ? --Makro Freak 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a FP because is a rare and good quality picture, taken by an important author, picturing a very important moment in Brazilian history (the guy on the center, because of the action captured in the picture, was president (dictator) of Brazil during 15 years!). In a few words: the image captured a defining moment of history. Dantadd✉ 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty good quality picture, with a very good B&W composition, picturing very nitid faces. It has not the resolution I'd wanted, but it's absolutely enough for a picture taken in 1930. But now this election is already over with you "oppose" votes. There's no turning back, it's the bad habit of digital pictures, we get spoiled. Dantadd✉ 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements state clearly that some rules can be broken with good reasons and I already presented them. I didn't expected this kind of biased criticism, you even want to delist the picture, a nasty action in opinion. I resignate myself. Dantadd✉ 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I chose to vote delist due to the basic FP requirements not being met. And, after all, I carry only one vote, which I sincerely ask you to accept without the accusation of me victimizing you. Thank you. --Digitaldreamer 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not victimizing me, but this very good and interesting picture, but ethnocentrism is something a lot of people simply don't see. Dantadd✉ 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Fossil tree 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Gipslöcher am Oberlech Gipslöcher am Oberlech

[edit]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I've seen the sign, so as Böhringer encouraged my besetting sin, I propose an edit without it and with a slight adjusting. Vassil 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rappenlochschlucht 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A unique image where both the diesel and coal fired engines of the DHR is visible in the loco shed and the view of the historic Darjeeling railway station.

 Oppose Quality, sorry. Regards, --Makro Freak talk 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please elaborate on quality? Noise, blurry, out of focus? Digon, Can you tell me where the sun streaks are? maybe i can fix it--Planemad 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both sun streaks are in the middle of the church-like structure on the hill and is most noticable in the bushes (there is also some missing pixels from stitching on the very top and some by the concrete blocks on the bottom right). --Digon3 talk 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole picture seems very harsh 2 me, Regards --Makro Freak talk 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Missiri(mosque in bambara language) Mosquee in Fréjus. Replica of Great Mosque of Djenné. 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Rocher du temple de Mercure, Château de la Wasenbourg, France 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Opposing has nothing to do you as a photographer and I have never had a problem with you. I am sorry if you feel like I oppose all your images. IMO this picture just has too harsh lighting to be a FP. --Digon3 talk 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really ment what I said. I like better, when my images are opposed than, when nobody opposes and/or supports them because then it is getting really boring. So there's nothing to be sorry about.--Mbz1 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Ah, ok. --Digon3 talk 01:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I dont find the lighting overly distracting. Its a beautiful bird and the background is interesting. Wildlife shots are difficult, you can't ask the subject to move into better light. Where was this taken btw? I'm curious what kind of heron it is.... -(psylexic)
    • The picture was taken in San Francisco ZOO. The bird was not in a cage and I saw him flying across that wide pond. I believed he was a wild bird. Yet I've never seen such a bird in San Francisco, but I did see something like this in Bali, Indonesia. I went to look for him on the NET and now I believe he is a Pond-Heron and he is not wild because looks like they do not live in SF. I believe his wings were cut just enough to make him able to fly only a short distanse.--Mbz1 18:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • thanks, I was wondering about the goldfish - now I understand. -psylexic
  •  Oppose Sorry. The lighting is too harsh, the background distracting, and for FP status the bird needs to be properly identified to the species level. --MichaelMaggs 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The lighning is 2 harsh for my taste, partialy overexposed, sorry. Regards --Makro Freak talk 14:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unfavourable lighting --Bergwolf 19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Boring arrangement --Wiki mouse 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Uncomfortable lighting and exposure. Not good enough for a FP, but still a nice picture. -- Ram-Man 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I cannot agree with "Boring arrangement". Usually I do not take boring pictures--Mbz1 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Short description
Short description

Short description

  •  InfoWestern Swallowtail Butterfly
  •  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If we are really going to "Raise the bar" on insect photos, then it has to have absolute technically perfection in addition to a wow factor. An out-of-focus wing is not technical perfection. -- Ram-Man 22:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Thats right --Makro Freak 08:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is right? The right wing is out of focus? Or maybe the left wing is out of focus?Then I guess you should have said:"Thats left",or maybe both wings are out of focus? Then should not you have said "Thats both"?--09:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • Sorry for my bad english, i meant that i agree with Ram-Man about the perfection for FP Makro Freak 1007, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • What's a pitty. I really wanted to learn what wing is out of focus(and to learn it from such insects autority as you are), not to repeat the same mistake the next time.--Mbz1 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
          • Sorry, my foul mouth forgets sometimes :). The wings are ok, but the head is really out of focus which is not nice for a top shot, plus the flower is overexposed. I think its nearly impossible to make a really good insect picture without a tripod. --Makro Freak talk 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wouldn't say that. For insects with large wings it's essential to be parallel to the wings. If your subject isn't holding perfectly still you are far less flexible with a tripod. In this special case the fault was to chose an aperture of f/5.6 at 1/1000s as the wings are not fully expanded (e.g. on a flat plane with the thorax). This could have easily been shot 3 stops down at f/11 and 1/125s which probably would have placed the complete butterfly inside the DOF. The background wouldn't have gotten prettier though --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Theoretically 1/1000s sounds great, and why you was exposing your dragonfly for 2seconds ? Regards --Makro Freak talk 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you for advices, everybody. I'm afraid it will not help me the next time, because while I would be changing my camera settings fast flying, wild insect would fly away.~~----Mbz1
                • I'm not saying you can't get good macro shots with a tripod but rather it isn't always a necessity for getting them. In my opinion macro photography is a constant struggle between getting enough DOF, light and shutter speed. If your subject isn't moving you can use a tripod and slow shutter speeds. In the Calopteryx virgo case it was cold and after a rain shower. If you shoot in the sun you certainly need a faster shutter simply because your subject will most probably move. But 1/1000s is overkill. This isn't sports photography and it's not a picture in-flight. 1/125s is usually enough to stop modest subject movement. Camera shake isn't a problem at this speed and 55mm as well. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:37, 10 July 2007
                • If you say so ;) --Makro Freak talk 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  •  InfoWestern Swallowtail Butterfly
  •  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1
  •  Support --Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Comment It is still the same butterfly, but a different shot. I believe the head is in focus now (of course I believed tha head was in focus at the left image too).--Mbz1 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose While the focus is more consistent in this one it's less sharp overall. It also has some very strange noise in the shadows which I'm quite puzzled why it is there at ISO 100. I also prefer the other composition. Sorry. --MichaD | Michael Apel 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Both the right and the left.I think I made my point. MichaD, there's is nothing to be sorry about. It was fun and I learned something new.-- Mbz1 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Elephant Beetle

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man. 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma elephas) feeding on sugar cane in Costa Rica.
  •  Support "Raise the bar" as per Makro Freak here. -- Ram-Man 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Few legs and the horn at the front are out of focus. I do not like framing. Very annoying background. Besides it looks that the picture was staged. I assume somebody was holding a sugar can for the tourists taking pictures.Is it still the same dead beatle from your prior submission?--Mbz1 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment That is not a fair comment, Mbz1. I suppose the staging argument is not valid here as it is also true for all the large beetles that passed here the last weeks!. The only thing keeping me from supporting this particular image is a focus issue. -- Lycaon 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably know very little about large beatles. I was sure that all last weeks images were real. If I knew they were not I would have never ever supported any one of them. I really do not like staged images.--08:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Oh they are real, and most probably alive too. But staged can also mean in a zoo or another artificial environment. Like a beetle from Madagascar sitting on a Brazilian flower (as with this Euchroea auripimenta for instance). It does not mean that FP can not be rewarded, but that kind of information should be provided. Lycaon 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose unfortunate background --Simonizer 07:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose also focus but I especially think that the composition is not convincing --AngMoKio 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I think I made my point. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Osprey with fish 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Interstate passing through downtown Seattle, Washington at dusk.

I just put the full sized version in photoshop again and I can't find anything tilted, even zoomed to 500%. What part dosen't look straight? The building verticals are right on and the waterline at bottom right is also perfectly horizontal. The original file was off, but I uploaded a new one that corrected the problem (I think). Cacophony 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That building you mention is a Red Lion Hotel and the light is their sign. Cacophony 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Obviously you know every corner of this area. My voting is o.k. ;-)) --Lantus 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Battle of the Little Big Horn

Indeed, but then again: m n.m.p. is not that clear for non-Polish speakers... Tbc 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like others labels as well :) So that's why i suggested author to make it "international".Masur 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - The elevation scale is wrong, this way the terrain is made of leveled steps. The image is somehow cluttered and "tight cropped", with big symbols and not enough empty space around. It would be nice to have an inset to show the location of the battle or, at least, to depict geographic coordinates. Finally, I'm sorry for not being totally able to evaluate something written in Polish. - Alvesgaspar 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the elevation classes are coarse, but to call them wrong is a step too far. There are always steps in elevation maps (they are never continuous, always discrete, might be interpolated but that's giving a false impression of accuracy). Tbc 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar is right, this way all places with a given color have the same elevation. For each color there should be an elevation interval, not a single elevation. - 16:12, 8 July 2007 85.3.8.68
  •  Oppose Nicely done, but I think the topography might be enhanced with the available PD NASA SRTM1 data (31m resolution) (has to be tested), the presentation of the elevation scale is weird, same for the North arrow and I don't like much the flashy colours. In fact, there's no « wow » for me in this map. Sting 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kamillenfeld mit Mohn vor der Veste Otzberg.JPG

[edit]
edit be digon3

wide angle lens distortion corrected

[edit]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Polyprion americanus.2 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Polyprion americanus.2 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 06:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bandeiras06052007.jpg - not featured

[edit]

Brazilian national flag handover. 

4 support, 6 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P. Brueghel II - De kindermoord.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Painting is Brussels 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alsloot - Tervuren.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Picture taken in Brussel museum 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Old people playing game of bowls 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Landsvale.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 Delist, 3 Keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bombus Bumblebee (Bestoevning).jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening delist nomination: 

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Mywood 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Siberian Tiger by Malene Th.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Streching tiger 

result: 2 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kaloe.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hestemøj.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Villingerød kirke.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 Delist, 2 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Simonizer 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mandril.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes).jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boelge stor.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 2 Delist, 5 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Solsort.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 Delist, 3 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Paravani lake in Georgia Paravani lake in Georgia

[edit]
No, that one is not tilted. I don't get what the location where the picture was taken has to do with tilting...--Jeses 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I removed the tilt. Vassil 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Marine fog rolls in Half Moon Bay, California 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metalmania 2007 - Sepultura - Derrick Green 01.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Short description

That's not a purple fringe, that's a wee bit of motion blur. --Digitaldreamer 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the motionblur --Makro Freak talk 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

HDR Sunset in Gothenburg

  •  Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support While a nice sunset by itself, this is nominated because it gives a good example of a HDR image, where multiple exposures and tone mapping are used to correctly expose every part of the image while retaining good contrast. --Nattfodd 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment Impressive dynamics, but i have the feeling that this is extreme artificial, over&underexposed, oversaturated, overcontrasted and distorted in some way. This is something from merlins hat. Where is a reference? Plus there is a optical distortion when looking at the architecture on the sides --Makro Freak 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info It's "normal" that it looks artificial, HDR images often do. Looking perfectly natural is not the point. Architecture distorsion is simply perspective when shooting at 11mm. I don't get what you want with the "reference".--Nattfodd 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeNoisy, oversharpend, tilt and it looks too unnatural --Simonizer 07:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info Noisy, maybe, though I shot 200 ISO and used a pretty heavy noise reduction filter in photoshop. I don't think it's a problem if you don't zoom to 100%. Oversharpened is impossible: I never sharpened it, and neither did the camera. Tilt is also impossible, I checked with the ruler at 100%, try it for yourself. As for unnatural, cf last comment.--Nattfodd 09:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all. Please sign your comments. Secondly, with tilt i meant the distortion by the wide angle focal length that i dont find necessary for this picture. Maybe the oversharpend effect comes from too much contrast or oversaturation. But i can go on with the flaws of this picture if you like. There is fringing around the windows of the buildings and all the buildings in the middle and on the left side of the picture are overexposed. --Simonizer 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --MichaD | Michael Apel 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have the hobby of HDR as well, but this pic is noisy and overexposed. Look at the histogram: you didn't take enough pictures, so you couldn't compress the dynamic range enough. Moreover, HDR-renderer algorithms are likely to increase noise, so, if you want to use some pics for HDR, you have to take them with the lowest possible ISO. Removing noise is not a solution, because Gaussian noise cannot be removed, unless you accept to loose some data (feature pictures must have no compromise!) Alessio Damato 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Noise and distortion. --Digon3 talk 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Great sunset, but the picture is noisy and unsharp. --AdrF 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

#1Short description#2 tilt corrected

  •  InfoGolden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay as seen at sunset from Land's End.
  •  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I do realize that the fog at the North Tower and the Sun at the South Tower is very destructive (not to say confusing). Also that strange line of the fog could be confused with the bridge(the Bridge is kind of red while the fog is kind of gray).I just ask you to remember - it was not me, who created the effect. It was the Nature. Of course I should have taken a picture from a different place. On the other hand the effect is rather interesting (in my opinion), Isn't this always like that - while somewhere is sunny, somewhere is foggy?--Mbz1 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Neutral I don't have a problem with the sun or the fog but the photo is seriously tilted. --AngMoKio 06:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is great you did not have a problem with the fog because I fprgot to explain that the bridge is below the fog while the fog is above the brige. About that tilt, you believe it could be corrected in photo shop?--Mbz1 15:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Info I corrected the tilt. --Digon3 talk 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
result: Nomination withdraw => not featured. Simonizer 07:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: Nomination withdraw => not featured. Simonizer 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sa old indian purse.jpg

[edit]

Old Indian woman's coin purse

[edit]
Scherzkeks! ;-) --Simonizer 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dirty surface, very oversharpened. Thegreenj 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is an antique thing. It's pretty old (about 100 years) and has been used many times. Please do not expect it to be like a clean new item. Though sharpened, I do not think that the quality of the image has suffered and the details are excellent even when its fully zoomed. sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was refering to the smudges and speckles on the white surface. The purse itself seems pretty clean. As for sharpening, every edge is followed by a dark or light line, a definite artifact of sharpening. For example, look at the coin. See the black shadow towards the top? On any side it is surrounded by (almost) pure white. Thegreenj 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree that it's way oversharpened, would support a version with less sharpening --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info Ok. I get it. I have put up a second version. This is the un-sharpened one with the surface cleaned. Do let me know of your opinion sanjay_ach 02:25, 07 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Schleienloecher2.JPG

[edit]

Schleienlöcher Schleienlöcher Schleienlöcher


[edit]
result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I propose an edit; I cropped the white top of the cloud, I slightly increase the luminosity of the water and I applied a gaussian blur to it to reduce the noise. Vassil 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info I followed Michael Apel's advice and I think he was right, the picture looks more luminous like this. Vassil 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sunset in Shinjuku Sunset in Shinjuku

[edit]
And iam not a friend of borders here at wikimedia --Simonizer 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Carterocephalus palaemon (Chequered Skipper) 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created by Signal Corps Photographs of American Military Activity - uploaded by Madmax32 - nominated by MichaelMaggs

This is currently a nominee for FP status on the en-W and is doing well so far. --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's of great historical interest - though shocking - and easily meets the main FP criteria in terms of techical and compositional excellence, and wow factor. See Commons:Featured pictures/Historical for more historic images that have been accepted here. --MichaelMaggs 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

God Speed! (1900), by Edmund Blair Leighton. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Kopulierende Fleischfliegen (Sarcophaga carnaria) 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer 4 Tage nach dem Schlüpfen

verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dateinamen können z.B. geändert werden mit dem {{badname}} Template. You should however do this after nomination has finished and then transfer FP status to the new one (reuploaded with proper name). Also check and correct usage for the file. I have no qualms with the image itself: for me it deserves FP status. Lycaon 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
warum dann immer noch ein Oppose ?????
As a matter of principal. Don't worry, it won't make a difference to the promotion of your image. Lycaon 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it´s ok thank´s--Böhringer 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht um den momentanen Dateinamen. Es sollte wohl der korrekte lateinische Namen der Spezies angegeben sein (und möglichst wenige kryptische Zahlen und Buchstaben). --AngMoKio 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wusste ich nicht, bin noch neu hier - danke für den Hinweis --Böhringer 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem :) --AngMoKio 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Blaugrüne Mosaikjungfer 4 Tage nach dem Schlüpfen

verstehe Lycaon nicht! Hier wurde kein Dateinamen geändert !!! --Böhringer 10:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dateinamen können z.B. geändert werden mit dem {{badname}} Template. You should however do this after nomination has finished and then transfer FP status to the new one (reuploaded with proper name). Also check and correct usage for the file. I have no qualms with the image itself: for me it deserves FP status. Lycaon 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
warum dann immer noch ein Oppose ?????
As a matter of principal. Don't worry, it won't make a difference to the promotion of your image. Lycaon 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it´s ok thank´s--Böhringer 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es geht um den momentanen Dateinamen. Es sollte wohl der korrekte lateinische Namen der Spezies angegeben sein (und möglichst wenige kryptische Zahlen und Buchstaben). --AngMoKio 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wusste ich nicht, bin noch neu hier - danke für den Hinweis --Böhringer 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem :) --AngMoKio 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Kopulierende Fleischfliegen (Sarcophaga carnaria) 

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

God Speed! (1900), by Edmund Blair Leighton. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 05:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Icebergs at Cape York 4x3 crop, different black and grey levels

[edit]
  •  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Walter Siegmund --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info This is a dramatic image of an interesting and unique subject in a very remote area (the coast of Greenland). It was taken from a helicopter. That may have contributed to what I think are minor technical flaws, e.g., some peripheral blur, but it is the only way this image could have been obtained. Some highlights may be overexposed (or have too much contrast enhancement applied), but detail is visible on the icebergs at the center of the image even on the brightest surfaces.
  •  Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as the creator. That picture surely has some technical issues, but a small, shaky helicopter is not exactly the right place to take quality pictures. Still that picture shows not only icebergs, but also glaciers, from which the icebergs were calving, and in my opinion has some encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  SupportI just like it, not so good quality, but it's ok--AdrF 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I really wanted to support this, despite its technical issues, for the effort that has obviously gone into taking this picture. But on second look, the composition itself (above all: big shadowy rock from the left) finally didn't convince me. Don't want to spoil your voting, tho. Kudos for this picture. --Digitaldreamer 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ack Digitaldreamer --Makro Freak 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Snowwayout 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A question: Are we voting about the circumstances or about the picture?--Szilas 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines include the criteria below. They include criteria for judging the technical quality of the picture as well. Both the difficulty of the subject and technical quality are important and should be considered when evaluating an image. I hope this is helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "For Featured Pictures, a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a better picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject." Commons:Image guidelines
      • "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Commons:Featured picture candidates
  •  Neutral Technical quality and that black rock in the lower right corner. --Digon3 talk 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, the technical quality is too low due to blur and/or shallow DoF. The ISO is too low for this type of shot or a stabilized lens could have been used. I've taken and seen a number of shots from moving objects at this shutter speed and aperture with much better results, even from the air. Icebergs look good like sunsets, so I don't buy the idea that it's extra special. -- Ram-Man 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understood what is common between icebergs and sunsets,but please don't try to explain your very thoughtful conclusion because I'm afraid it will make the things only more confusing.--Mbz1 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • As nearly as I can determine, this is the only aerial view of a group of icebergs along with source glaciers on Commons (please see Category:Icebergs and Iceberg). I found very few aerial views of iceberg groups and one of those was contributed by Mbz1. Ship or land-based images generally don't depict iceberg groups well or their relationship to source glaciers. Iceberg spawning from the continental glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland is important since it is a process that could lead to catastrophic sea level rise over the next few centuries. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Not enough mitigation to balance the very poor focus. I've taken many photos that represent the only one of their kind on the Internet (e.g. (Image:Acanthochondria cornuta.jpg), Image:Diastylis laevis.jpg, Image:Hibiscus rhodanthus.jpg,..., but that doesn't mean they all should be FPs. It doesn't degrade the value of the picture, it just is not good enough for FP. Lycaon 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how you possibly could compare my image with your images. (Of course after Ram-Man compared icebergs with sunsets nothing could surprise me any more). Your images are unique and special and I'd say they are so special that only very few people, maybe even very few scientists could be interested in them. On the other hand my image while still unique and special represents much broader interest for general population.--Mbz1 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose As per Lycaon --Makro Freak 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you like to vote as Lycaon does, I really believe you should oppose the picture on the right too(after all Lycaon did), just to be consistent you know--10:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  •  Oppose I don't think an interesting subject and difficult shooting situation alone are enough to mitigate so-so composition and quality --MichaD | Michael Apel 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think the image aberration was introduced by the aircraft window. Notice how the image quality varies over the field of view. A focus error or camera motion would cause more or less uniform degradation of the image quality. Depth of field should not be a factor at 20 mm focal length and f/2.8 for this subject, either. Some of the reviewers may not fully appreciate the challenge of aerial photography in the Arctic. It is probably very difficult to take pictures in that cold environment through an open window or door. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess most (if not all) reviewers appreciate difficult circumstances to take some pictures. But in the end... it is the result that counts... Lycaon 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But in the end... it is the result that counts..." Could not say any better.--Mbz1 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
It's interesting that this is brought up alone with the NASA references below. We've rejected at least one NASA photo that had smudges (presumably) from dirty glass on the spaceship. Space is an even more difficult shooting environment than in the helicopter, but even in that case it still was not mitigating enough. -- Ram-Man 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unclear. --Derbeth talk 09:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad it is "unclear" for you.If it was "clear" for you, then it would have been something wrong with the picture--Mbz1 17:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • The only "dramatic" thing in this "image" is ignorance of people who think it would ever be put on the main page of Commons. The photo has so many technical flaws that it's a disrespect for people voting here to present them such work. Being able to fly in a helicopter over icebergs unfortunately does not mean that you are mature enough to discuss civilly and react to criticism like a man not like a crying child. --Derbeth talk 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, mine. We all were just having a good time before you came about and spoiled all the fun, Derbeth. If you go down to that very page, you could see that I nominated all 3 of my prior FP to be delisted: 1, 2 and 3 which, I hope, would make it clear even for you how much I really care about my pictures to "be put on the main page of Commons" . And now I'm ready to learn your verdict ,if that "defected" picture could stay at Wikipedia at all or, if you believe, it should be deleted all together. I also must admit that one of these "defected" pictures of the same icebergs was published at EPOD image. I strongly believe that you, Derbeth should write to the EPOD editor and request him to remove that "deffected" picture. The EPOD editor works for NASA . His e-mail address is :"jfoster @ glacier . gsfc. nasa. gov." I do hope that his e-mail address makes it clear even for you that he is a specialist in glaciology (Glaciology is the science about glaciers and icebergs). I'm sure he will be very interested to learn your clear opinion about him publishing such an "unclear" picture at NASA site. I do hope it is clear even for you that, if you are to use his e-mail address you should delete the spaces and a period. I'm afraid I would never be able to "react to criticism like a man"(the thing is I am a woman). In a meantime you are doing a great job by the moving "images from other Wikipedias to Commons and categorize images." It will be nice, if you could help me to categorize few of mine "defected" ones too, just before you request them to be deleted. I did visit your gallery,Derbeth. Tell you what I think Wikipedia would have lost a lot without you pictures. I liked them. I'm so glad I lost my time to see them. --Mbz1 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • "Mummy, mummy, those evil people don't like my photos. I'm going to another sandbox!" Do you have any personal problems? When I'm talking about images, you are talking about me (in a way which obviously is a personal attack), my photos, NASA and glaciology, which are all things completely irrelevant in judging whether the photos above are worth being shown on the main page of Commons as extraordinary works. Your photos may contain something that is interesting for a scientist (iceberg of unusual shape or something like that), but still be full of technical flaws. Photo no 4 is so much overexposed that it should never ever appear in this vote.
You have to understand, that noone cares, how have you taken this photo: with a tripod or not, from a helicopter or from a ship, with an assistance of US president or NASA director, in Antarctica, Arctica, other on the Moon. Whether you have broken your leg trying to make it, paid million of dollars to get to this place. The only important thing is whether the photo is high quality or not. Is the photo unsharp because you have taken it from a helicopter? Sorry, we don't care about it - the poto is unsharp, so bye, bye. I have shown you Image:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg as an example of photo depicting ice and snow preserving natural colours, sharpness and all details. Your photo is light years away from this photo in terms of quality. I see you don't understand the simpliest things - there's not sense for me to continue this discussion. If you think that people will admire your photos only because you are perhaps a Ph.D. and have the possibility to visit Arctica - you are wrong. You are not the first person on Wikimedia projects who thinks they are always right only because they work on a university or are older than others. Such pathological cases appear regularly. --Derbeth talk 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination at the request (via email) of the creator. I would add that I'm disappointed at the level to which this discourse has dropped. Incivility, ad hominem attacks and insults violate Commons policies and guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - The Prayer (1865) (cropped).jpg, not featured.

[edit]

A young girl praying in a 1865 painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. --MichaelMaggs 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Map showing which Major League Baseball teams have Blackout rights in the contiguous United States

  •  Comment The SVG is here, albeit without a different border. The technical issue with SVG is that the shapefiles used to create the borders and the data layer come from different sources. The data layer is derived from the U.S. Census' Zip Code Tabulation Areas, which are only approximations of actual areas because they are derived from mail routes rather than actual geography. However, it appears to be the way MLB defines blackout areas (off the first 3 digits of the ZIP code). This difference in sources (and the fact that I had to project the ZCTA layer into the same coordinate system as the border layer) results in some slight deviations (e.g., state boundaries not matching corresponding ZCTA boundaries, a flaw that would show on a sufficiently scaled SVG. With a fixed-resolution PNG, those flaws can be manually corrected to present an overall higher-quality graphic. Additionally, there are technical reasons for PNG over SVG. The corresponding SVG file (I haven't reuploaded a new one since I changed the border, so the current size may be smaller) currently in Commons weighs in at 4-5 MB, thanks in no small part to the hatching used to symbolize areas with more than one team exercising blackout rights (which I consider a better symbology over the one used on the map that had been used for this information on enwiki. The wiki-created images are fine, but when I try to view the original svg, my firefox locks up. On the other hand, the PNG comes in at 200-300 KB and doesn't have the pesky font problem that the svg has. Regarding anti-aliasing, I would consider that to be a negative in an image like this one. I prefer to let the rendering engine do the anti-aliasing when it's scaled rather than have it anti-aliased to start with and *then* anti-aliased again when it is viewed at a different size. I've seen that go screwball. This is also the native resolution at which the image was generated, not some scaled knockoff. The mapping software generated the image, with only retouching by me. This wasn't an svg-png conversion. Also, could you explain "poor quality"? If there is something I could actually do to make this picture of higher quality, I would like to know. --Braindrain0000 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Looks like a useful diagram, but I think it lacks the extra quality to make it an FP. I think the pastell colors make it look a bit less proffesional, and could the striped areas be replaced by solid colors instead ? It's harder to follow the borders in a striped pattern, specially when it is as course as here. It should also be inserted in a proper category. Another thing is the color legend at the top. As the background is transparent they should probably have borders or the color square will vanish if the background color is the same (like for the white color now). By the way I also tried to open the SVG and my browser was frozen for several minutes, I guess the svg should be optimized in some way. /Daniel78 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose- too bright colors, to bad mixture of colors (created movement, like when you used blue and red together or yellow and blue)also the squares and the text are too tight together even touching in some cases.. by the way what is a blackout right anyway?-LadyofHats 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could anyone help by suggesting a color palette to use? The difficulty here is trying to individually symbolize so many different teams (and I need to use a lot more than just four colors because there are so many team interactions). --Braindrain0000 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • what you need is to lower the intensity of the colors. then you ceate a symbol, or use the team simbol, or the state initial letters to have another way to point them. a bit like this notice that by using this method you can repeat colors as long as they are not touching eachother. and also the final image is smaller becouse you aboid using all the list of names outside the map. you can even make colored outlines for each area, and in the areas they have common borders use double lines. to show both colors.-LadyofHats 05:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Accolade (1901), by Edmund Blair Leighton. 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asian fan dance2.jpg

[edit]

Korean fan dance Korean fan dance

[edit]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Digital clock's display changing numbers

Thanks, I mistake the category link. --Beyond silence 06:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
A cooling honeybee A cooling honeybee
Version 1: Honeybee-cooling.jpg Version 2: Honeybee-cooling_cropped.jpg

Version 1

[edit]
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

[edit]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Eastern Gray Squirrel

 Info Its not zoomed in thats just where the squirrel was next to the camera. Also its at 100% sharp. -- IvanTortuga 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Info By "zoomed" I meant "at full resolution". And take a closer look, it's very far from being 100% sharp. --Nattfodd 07:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Gorner and Grenz glaciers 

result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the Tepidarium, by John William Godward In the Tepidarium, by John William Godward

I blured it and applied median cut filter. --AM 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that makes it look out of focus, particularly around the face. Adam Cuerden 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

NGC 2808 globular cluster in Carina with 3 star populations by Hubble Space Telescope 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Euthrix potatoria, caterpillar 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sa old indian purse.jpg

[edit]

Old Indian woman's coin purse

[edit]
Scherzkeks! ;-) --Simonizer 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Dirty surface, very oversharpened. Thegreenj 04:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is an antique thing. It's pretty old (about 100 years) and has been used many times. Please do not expect it to be like a clean new item. Though sharpened, I do not think that the quality of the image has suffered and the details are excellent even when its fully zoomed. sanjay_ach 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was refering to the smudges and speckles on the white surface. The purse itself seems pretty clean. As for sharpening, every edge is followed by a dark or light line, a definite artifact of sharpening. For example, look at the coin. See the black shadow towards the top? On any side it is surrounded by (almost) pure white. Thegreenj 16:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree that it's way oversharpened, would support a version with less sharpening --MichaD | Michael Apel 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

 Info Ok. I get it. I have put up a second version. This is the un-sharpened one with the surface cleaned. Do let me know of your opinion sanjay_ach 02:25, 07 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Accolade (1901), by Edmund Blair Leighton. 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asian fan dance2.jpg

[edit]

Korean fan dance Korean fan dance

[edit]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

and if ? :) --Makro Freak 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bin ich jetzt schon zum "Typ oder Kerl" degradiert worden von dir ? --Makro Freak talk 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ich meinte mit "that guy" den Typ auf dem Bild. --AngMoKio 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Axo, du meinst die "Göre". Ja, die gibt dir gerne eine schmutzige Tatze aufs T-Shirt ;) --Makro Freak talk 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ AngMoKio. Your statement is nonsens.-Wiki mouse 12:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that we are a very serious community - I am sorry --AngMoKio 13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Cannot agree. Look for, example at this Silky Terrier. She was not with kids, but with an elderly womam. I asked her why the dog dressed up like that ans she explained to me that dog's eyes are sensitive to light and sunglasses help. Of course as soon as I posted the picture to Toy Dogs page user Jerazol removed it for "vandalism". I still cannot understand what the "vandalism" was - the dog dressed up or my picture at the page, but who cares there are many other things that I cannot understand about Wikipedia.--Mbz1 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose I just don't think this should be a FP, hope thats ok. --Digon3 talk 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ack Digon3 Lycaon 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Cute, but not spectacular. We are dropping photos of animals because there is something artificial in part of the background, and now herw we have the artificial elements right in its face :) I think it's dangerous to promote a picture of a manipulated animal (even though in this case it was supposed to be fun for the dog as well), and only very good and/or informative photographs of this practice (like Image:NMMP dolphin with locator.jpeg) should be featured. Anyway, thanks for introducing a fresh theme into this election. --Javier ME 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment As you guessed, this nomination was not serious nor encyclopedic. It was my farewell-picture, designed to make you a little bit happy, and i think this list really needs it :). I started doing my public domain macro-photography project here on Wikimedia exactly 8 weeks ago, and in that time i contributed more than 150 pictures, where 24! of them surprisingly earned featured picture promotions. So this encyclopedic thing has come to an end for me, and i am heading for new interesting, unencyclopedic ;) photography projects beyond Wikimedia. A lot of respect goes to Alvesgaspar, Ram-Man, MBZ1 - she should be my bold substitute;), Simonizer, Michael Maggs, Digon3, LC-de, Digitaldreamer on ICQ, Lycaon, Luc Viatour, AngMoKio, MichaD | Michael Apel!, Böhringer the very hot newcomer! and all the users who spend their precious time with Wikimedia. So forget this nomination and post some funny comments until its running out. Best regards, Richard aka --Makro Freak talk 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


hmm..too bad..we would lose a high-quality contributor. Have you ever thought of contributing non-macro pictures? Wouldn't that be a challenge? You would leave without giving me one single supporting vote...anyway I will miss your oppose's ;) --AngMoKio 13:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schreib mir doch eine Mail wenn es soweit ist, beim nächsten Bild kriegst du blinden Support  ;) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you know the non-macro pictures he left us? --wau > 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:) This one is my favourite !  :) --Bergwolf 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Echt?, ich mochte das hier immer am liebsten  :) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, its just to move on. I will be back in spring 2008 and in the meantime I am still collecting ;) --Makro Freak talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makro Freak, I strongly believe you should have supported few of my pictures, if you are leaving anyway(I hope everybody understans I'm kidding, but I'm not sure everybody does). I'm going to miss you, Richard. I wish you good luck with whatever you up to. I'm sure sooner or later you will come back with new great pictures.--Mbz1 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply] 
result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Papaver rhoes 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Melanargia galathea 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Daisy

  •  Info created and uploaded by Jina Lee - edited and nominated by Ram-Man. 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A cut daisy (Bellis perennis) flower on a table.
  •  Support The composition sets this above many other flower featured pictures. Perfect exposure: not to dark and the highlights are not blown. -- Ram-Man 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeThe quality is great, but I do not feel that killing a wild flower is a right thing to do for creating the composition that "sets this above many other flower featured pictures."(I hope it was not done in a protected area). Besides I really see no value in the image. --Mbz1 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • This is an extremely common flower, often considered an invasive species and grown in many private gardens. I really doubt it was a wild flower anyway. It was taken in the United States where it is an introduced, non-native species. They are very common cut flowers for use in flower arrangements. -- Ram-Man 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for explaining it to me, Ram-Man. Still my second point is valid - the flower is too comon for the picture to hav a value.--Mbz1 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • And we continue to disagree on what is "value". -- Ram-Man 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We sure do. It is actually very easy for me. First we should remember that we are at Wikipedia the free encyclopedia and not at a professional photo forum. For example that Golden Gate Bridge picture that I nominated could have some value but not because of the bridge, but because of the kind of interesting fog. Sure the Bridge is beautiful, but there so many pictures of the Bridge. I as a reader go to Wikipedia to learn and I as a reader could not care less, if for example few icebergs are out of focus, because it is unique and interesting picture taken in a very, very remote area. I as a reader probably will not even notice that things. Look how many beautiful high quality insects and flowers pictures are featured. There's no single aerial iceberg picture is featured and probably will not any time soon. It is great, when the value and the quality come together, but, if for some reason it cannot be achieved yet, for me as a reader the value is everything that matters. Besides, if a better picture on the subject will became available later, the other one could get delisted. I'd like to finish at the funny note: somebody told me once that even, if I took a picture of an alien in an alien ship, but the picture came out blurry, he would have voted against it. Oh, well.--Mbz1 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose i agree quality is good but i am not satisfied with the composition. The flower is right in the center of the photo. This makes pictures boring. If you would have left more free space on the right it might have been a great photo. --AngMoKio 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great picture: great colours and composition. Mbz1, this is not Wikipedia. I'm emphasising this, because it's something you've been told before. Anrie 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simonizer, Anrie, so what it is Wikimedia? Does it mean that Value of the picture does not matter? Please, go to the beginning of this very page and read:Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: almost all sunsets are pretty, and most such pictures are not essence different from others, nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime, BEATIFUL DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN VALUABLE.. (I'm emphasising this because it is a quote from Guidelines for nominators for Wikimedia FP.) Besides to me that paricular image is neither beatiful nor valuable, if of course Anrie would not mind me to have my own opinion. OK, Anrie? Thanks, Anrie. Oh, by the way, Anrie, could you please remind me what else I "was told before" and (what is even more important) by whom I "was told before".--Mbz1 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • Wikimedia is a media collection for various (current and future) projects - not only wikipedia.--AngMoKio 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks AngMoKio. And you, my dear Mbz1, are always putting value on a level with encyclopedic value. That might be true for wikipedia, but once again we are here at wikimedia, so value can be something different too. --Simonizer 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everybody, (including Anrie) you have won. Next time, when I oppose a no value picture I would write:"I do not see anything special in that picture." Do you believe it would be OK?--Mbz1 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Lovely composition and object, background tends to underexposure. --Bergwolf 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose too ordinary -psylexic
  •  Support --Jeses 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Exellent technical condition, acceptable composition. --Beyond silence 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Derbeth talk 09:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I can see this framed on my wall. a classic image. --Scrumshus 03:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --startaq 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but whoever did the chromatic abberration reduction on the image did a terrible job. It now looks like each petal has been smeared or blurred. You should have cloned in some background cutting the CA out. Aside from that dislike the grey object top LHS, dislike the browny arc mid LHS, and consider the image overall underexposed and lacking any punch/interest --Fir0002 www 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition and Ack Fir0002 on 4th sentence. --Digon3 talk 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support FYI this is not a cut flower; rather it is a very small weed "daisy", found in a field of grass, not the kind a florist would use. (Think buttercups and clovers...) They grow in patches in the grass, like weeds, and don't get much taller than a blade of grass, either. Jina Lee 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In my opinion it has no 'wow'-factor and I find it uninteresting. -- Slaunger 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose so schön die Blume ist, aber hier fehlt mE die natürliche Umgebung. --Böhringer 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose composition --Wiki mouse 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  -- Ram-Man 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn ==> Not featured. --MichaelMaggs 22:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Divers - Illustrated London News Feb 6 1873-2.PNG, featured

[edit]

Edit - levels cleaned up, a little going in with the eraser to remove some minor remaining speckling outside the frame of the picture 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => RH image featured. --MichaelMaggs 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawaii_turtle_2.JPG, kept

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 delist, 11 keep, 0 neutral => kept(rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Play fight IMG 3018.JPG, kept

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => kept(rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eagle Owl IMG 9203.JPG, kept

[edit]

Short description 

result: 1 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => kept (rule of 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Itsukushima torii angle.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Handmade soap.jpg, kept

[edit]

Short description 

result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 1 neutral => kept at higher resolution. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amur Tiger Panthera tigris altaica Eye 2112px edit.jpg, kept

[edit]

Amur Tiger 

result: kept. No anonymous proposers, please. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus 2000px.jpg, kept

[edit]

Papilio glaucus 

result: kept. No anonymous proposers, please. --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ujazz2007 00048.jpg

[edit]

Jazz Songstress black-and-white

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
I don't think so. I agree with what is stated above.--MichaelMaggs 16:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raspberryfruit.JPG

[edit]

Respberry fruit

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 07:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Short description

Ich würde nie einen Fuß oder Fühler ab-oder anschneiden. Aber von der Qualität her könnte es hinkommen :) Pass auf mit deinem Support, das Bild ist nicht besonders groß (853 × 1280). --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist ein Irrglaube, zu glauben dass abgeschnittene Teile des Hauptobjekts ein Fehler sind....das kann Teil der Komposition sein. So sehe ich das hier. Was die Größe angeht...das kann ich hier übersehen. --AngMoKio 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Ich sprach ja auch nur von | mir . --Makro Freak talk 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, ich bin der Autor des Bildes. Habe das Bild in besserer Auflösung eingestellt und das alte ersetzt. Ich kannte die Anforderungen nicht. JuliusR
Willkommen bei den FPCs. Mit dem Bild machst du einen schönen Einstand hier. --AngMoKio 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by strange axis?--AngMoKio 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that the grashopper toppling backwards, like drunken. --Bergwolf 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I see what you meen. But that was the way it was sitting there. Anyway I am happy for any fair comment to help me sharpen my view. JuliusR
Thanks! The exposure data is right. It was a cloudy day with no wind and I did some experiments with my new remote control for the camera. I took about 10 pictures with different exposure settings to see how they come out. This one was the best. JuliusR 10:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

How come you are opposing your own nomination? --MichaelMaggs 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Even in a bad dream I would not have thought about nominating the image. It has too many problems even to name them all. Of course the condition of the shooting was even harder than with icebergs (you know these same icebergs about which Ram-Man said: "Icebergs look good like sunsets". )Anyway let's get back to monkeys. These monkeys are behind the stained glass that gives a very, very strong reflection. You hardly could see anything at all leave alone take pictures. Of course as absolutely correctly said Lycaon "But in the end... it is the result that counts..." So I'm not looking for any excuses. I just nominated the picture because Digon3 said about my prior nomination "By the way, "she" has a mustache :) ". See with the monkeys it does not work this way, and here we at last got to the most interesting part of the nomination, which could have some encyclopedic value. I know for sure that the pictured monkey is she. The thing is that the monkeys just got twins and the father is always the one, who carries babies at his back. As you could see that monkey has no babies on her, which clearly shows that in spite she is she, she still has a mustache. On the other hand here's the picture of him also with mustache and with the babies. . I do hope all that she/he/mustache thing does not sound very complicated--Mbz1 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment I was trying to be funny when I said she has a mustache and I never doubted that it was a she (I am not an animal expert at all). I know that animals come in all different shapes and sizes and I just thought it was funny when compared to humans. --Digon3 talk 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it was very funny :). By the way you as well could have been right about that nomination. To tell you the truth I've no idea, if that Patas monkey is she or he. I just feel so sad after Richard left us that I try to be funny. Thanks for helping me with that,Digon3 :)--Mbz1 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose Overexposed, unnatural colours, very unsharp. --Derbeth talk 09:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  InfoTea Rose 'Ingrid Bergman' (Rosa) Rose and a Western Honeybee
  •  Info created uploaded and nominated by Mbz1--Mbz1 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose no species identification for either organism. Lycaon 20:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC) withdraw opposition now that the species issue has been resolved Lycaon 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Wiki mouse 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose species identification is essential for FP status. --MichaelMaggs 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Resolved. --MichaelMaggs 12:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm really doing much better with that nomination than with the other ones - no noise problem, no out of focus problem, no composition problem and no croping problem. So far. That's great. Thanks. By the way I did ID for both the rose and the bee , so oppose reason is no longer valid(sorry), but no worries you still have plenty of time to come up with a new one as I know you will. I also like to mention that, if I wanted to get IDs for "organism" from somebody else picture I would have rather comment and ask, if ID could me made, instead of opposing the picture right away (and if I were administrator on Wikimedia Commons I would have offered my help in trying to ID the "organism" on a picture.) --Mbz1 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

 Support --Donarreiskoffer 08:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 It is too small Mbz1 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply] 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Upload the picture with the correct file name and tag this one {{badname|''image''}}. --Digon3 talk 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok i did it. thanks for the tip-LadyofHats 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Damsel fly on my hand.jpg

[edit]

Short description

  •  Oppose I do not know what "organism" the damselfly is, but I know for sure the name of "organism" :), on which the damselfly is sitting-it is my own hand(Homo sapiens). It was the hardest picture I've ever took (with only one hand free). Is it a mitigating reason?:) I'd say: "no", and I should  Oppose. --Mbz1 06:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 12:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •  CommentThat nomination was not meant to succeed. I would never let it to succeed. That picture has no value. That nomination was posted here for fun and fun only. Haven't you noticed that I opposed it myself 2 times already? Thanks for the adding the template. It really made my nominatioun even funnier:)--Mbz1 13:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    • I don't know about other users, but I for one am not fond of considering pictures for FP status, only to find out that the nominator only posted the picture to make a point/for fun. This page is for Featured picture candidates. Posts like this also makes it difficult to take actual nominations seriously. If you really don't intend on seeing your nominations reach FP status, please do not post them here. Anrie 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. I'll make no more fun of Featured picture candidates, but thanks for considering the picture even after you saw a delist request.--Mbz1 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
[edit]
Short description
Egret and fish.JPG Egret and fish edit.jpg
  •  Info A great Egret and still alive fish
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentLet's try to play a game. If you want to oppose the picture because you do not like the crop of the egret, think about the fish(it is not cropped at all). If you want to oppose the picture because the fish body is in a shadow, think about egret's bill that casted the shadow ,if you, believe that the egret is overexposed, please try to think about the fish that is underexposed (maybe they compensate each other?) . Maybe then somebody will be brave enough to support that funny image(I'm sure the fish did not think it was funny at all) , or maybe not. But whatever you support (I doubt it) or oppose (I'm sure you will) the image, maybe you'll be able to enjoy that rare wildlife action. Anyway I'm ready for all your comments, except one, please don't tell me that the picture is boring. Good luck!--Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose ditto mbz1 ;). overexposed, underexposed = bad lighting, bad crop, noisy and some purple fringing (last 2 things can probably be edited, picture has high enough res) -- Gorgo 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very overexposed. I think if the fish is fully dark can be better.--Beyond silence 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as an action shot, most def not boring. too bad about over-contrast and crop —the preceding unsigned comment is by Psylexic (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2007
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Poor fish... --Digon3 talk 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentI'm not sure how one could possibly take such a shot with the correct expousere of both the fish and the bird. I did not want to make a fish fully dark (who would have guessed that it was a fish then?) Still I do enjoy your "oppose". Keep them coming please.--Mbz1 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose per above, and part of the bird's head is missing... Majorly (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Technical quality is below average. --Bergwolf 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThank you, everybody, for taking your time to oppose and comment on the picture. I do like your "oppose" almost as much as I like your "support" and I like your "oppose" much more, than when nobody votes at all (it is so boring). So in my opinion that nomination is doing great.--Mbz1 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose -- As above. Also Mbz1, can I ask why you selected the image in preference to Egret and fish 2? -- Snowwayout 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure can. I believed that the nominated image is more interesting because the fish is hanging in the air, while in the other image the egret simply holds a fish in his bill. I hope it answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--Mbz1 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment would appreciate location info. Lycaon 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would have supported Egret and fish 2 -psylexic
  •  Support Just being annoying ;-) (I like the s-lines, the background and the action. Missing some of the head of the bird and a bit more sharpness on the fish. A pity with the overexposure, it really is a great scene) --Malene Thyssen 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. --RedCoat 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lycaon, you forgot to support the image yourself.--Mbz1 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Neutral I like the photo, but I find the DOF a bit distracting because the background transitions from blurred to sharp right around the jackal, which make some of the twigs around it sharp while others that a right next to them blurry. (This also affects parts of the jackal itself.) Also, the face seems a little blurred, although that could probably fixed with some editing. <~KULSHRAX~> 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support On second thought, when you compare this to other mammal featured pictures, this one is excellent in comparative quality. In fact, it seems as if some of the others should be delisted if more pictures like this should come along. <~KULSHRAX~> 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support great photo, although not sure if its my monitor but seems a bit lacking in brightness/saturation. Also I agree with kulshrax, the face is slightly blurry. But these things are secondary. How did you get so close to a wild coyote? -psylexic
It's a matter of luck, I guess, as with most pictures taken in the wild. You just have time to take a few snaps before it runs, and you hope there is a least one good one ;). There is very often no time to fidget with ISO's, DOF's or white balances... I'm already very happy if the right lens for the job is on my camera, and the car window is down! BTW, it is not a coyote but a black-backed jackal, in Etosha, Namibia. Lycaon 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Lycaon 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Colchicum autumnale 

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

School of Harlequin sweetlips, Plectorhinchus chaetodonoides. 

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hótell Kasakstan.jpg

[edit]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: tilted and too small. --MichaelMaggs 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]
Short description
Egret and fish.JPG Egret and fish edit.jpg
  •  Info A great Egret and still alive fish
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentLet's try to play a game. If you want to oppose the picture because you do not like the crop of the egret, think about the fish(it is not cropped at all). If you want to oppose the picture because the fish body is in a shadow, think about egret's bill that casted the shadow ,if you, believe that the egret is overexposed, please try to think about the fish that is underexposed (maybe they compensate each other?) . Maybe then somebody will be brave enough to support that funny image(I'm sure the fish did not think it was funny at all) , or maybe not. But whatever you support (I doubt it) or oppose (I'm sure you will) the image, maybe you'll be able to enjoy that rare wildlife action. Anyway I'm ready for all your comments, except one, please don't tell me that the picture is boring. Good luck!--Mbz1 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose ditto mbz1 ;). overexposed, underexposed = bad lighting, bad crop, noisy and some purple fringing (last 2 things can probably be edited, picture has high enough res) -- Gorgo 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very overexposed. I think if the fish is fully dark can be better.--Beyond silence 01:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as an action shot, most def not boring. too bad about over-contrast and crop —the preceding unsigned comment is by Psylexic (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 July 2007
  •  Oppose Overexposed. Poor fish... --Digon3 talk 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentI'm not sure how one could possibly take such a shot with the correct expousere of both the fish and the bird. I did not want to make a fish fully dark (who would have guessed that it was a fish then?) Still I do enjoy your "oppose". Keep them coming please.--Mbz1 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose per above, and part of the bird's head is missing... Majorly (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Technical quality is below average. --Bergwolf 21:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThank you, everybody, for taking your time to oppose and comment on the picture. I do like your "oppose" almost as much as I like your "support" and I like your "oppose" much more, than when nobody votes at all (it is so boring). So in my opinion that nomination is doing great.--Mbz1 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose -- As above. Also Mbz1, can I ask why you selected the image in preference to Egret and fish 2? -- Snowwayout 04:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure can. I believed that the nominated image is more interesting because the fish is hanging in the air, while in the other image the egret simply holds a fish in his bill. I hope it answers your question. Please feel free to ask me, if you have more questions.--Mbz1 05:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment would appreciate location info. Lycaon 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would have supported Egret and fish 2 -psylexic
  •  Support Just being annoying ;-) (I like the s-lines, the background and the action. Missing some of the head of the bird and a bit more sharpness on the fish. A pity with the overexposure, it really is a great scene) --Malene Thyssen 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Top of head cut off, hurts enc. --RedCoat 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Colchicum autumnale 

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

School of Harlequin sweetlips, Plectorhinchus chaetodonoides. 

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured Lycaon 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Tianjin Daily headquarters

Can you say why? --MichaelMaggs 09:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Comment No. Featured pictures is about 'value', not about quality. Quality is part of value, but a picture can be poor technically, and still be valuable. "Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a Featured Picture is sometimes permitted to fall short on technical quality." Commons:Featured picture candidates#Guidelines for Evaluating Photographs "a technically ordinary picture of an extraordinary subject can be perceived as a better picture than a technically excellent picture of an ordinary subject" Commons:Image guidelines. Important as technical quality is, there are more important things. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but do you really believe that this particular photo contains the "wow factor"? I didn't think "wow" when I first saw this picture. --Derbeth talk 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky question. In it's own right, just as a portrait, no, no it doesn't. But it's not just a portrait of just anybody, it's a prime minister of a reasonably significant nation. Imagine this were a commercial library, would people pay to use this image? I think so. It's not a great photo, but it's a good photo of a 'difficult subject'. The composition is nice, and it shows a lot of detail reasonably well. It shows the man. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lycaon, you forgot to support the image yourself.--Mbz1 00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Neutral I like the photo, but I find the DOF a bit distracting because the background transitions from blurred to sharp right around the jackal, which make some of the twigs around it sharp while others that a right next to them blurry. (This also affects parts of the jackal itself.) Also, the face seems a little blurred, although that could probably fixed with some editing. <~KULSHRAX~> 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support On second thought, when you compare this to other mammal featured pictures, this one is excellent in comparative quality. In fact, it seems as if some of the others should be delisted if more pictures like this should come along. <~KULSHRAX~> 10:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support great photo, although not sure if its my monitor but seems a bit lacking in brightness/saturation. Also I agree with kulshrax, the face is slightly blurry. But these things are secondary. How did you get so close to a wild coyote? -psylexic
It's a matter of luck, I guess, as with most pictures taken in the wild. You just have time to take a few snaps before it runs, and you hope there is a least one good one ;). There is very often no time to fidget with ISO's, DOF's or white balances... I'm already very happy if the right lens for the job is on my camera, and the car window is down! BTW, it is not a coyote but a black-backed jackal, in Etosha, Namibia. Lycaon 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured Lycaon 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

 Comment I would not like another type of stain on a drawing, but for a post stamp it's normal to be cancelled. I don't think this wee black mark in a corner is bad.--Javier ME 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Image 1 (Nominated): Pāhoehoe lava meets Pacific

Image 2 (FYI only): Pāhoehoe lava meets Pacific (close-up) still lots of smoke

Image 3 (FYI only): Pāhoehoe lava tongue

  •  Support --Mbz1 02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It was a very long and a very hot hike to get to the place. We should have crossed an active lava field and neither my lungs nor my camera liked sulfur. I'm only telling you that in case somebody is going to Hawaii soon and wants to see the red lava himself/herself. I do understand that no one cares how I took that photo: whether I have broken my leg trying to take the picture(which I did not), paid million of dollars to get to this place (which I did not),or if I'm Ph.D(who I am not). I do understand that the only important thing is whether the photo is high quality or not(who cares about the subject after all). So, because I cannot rely on all of the above, my only hope with that picture is : The image is so smoky, that maybe (I don't think so) you will miss that the lava is out of focus while the ocean is overexposed and yes I cannot even dream that the picture would ever be put on the main page of Commons ( I guess I should to learn how to live without that honor).I really am ready to take criticism as a man (despite I'm a woman).Please also forgive me my ignorance for nominating the image (Like I mentioned in the beginning, I just wanted to share the experience, in case somebody is interested to see that smoky collision even in such a bad quality picture).--Mbz1 02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Though I wonder if it should be a bit more tightly cropped for use in thumbnails, or if that would ruin the composition. Adam Cuerden 03:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support May be not a perfect picture technically speaking (look OK to me) but still a good picture which will be used in the different projects. Romary 11:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose overexposed and it's basically just a lot of smoke ;). While it may be impressive to see it in real, I don't think this picture is -- Gorgo 12:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A crack in a lava tube
      A crack in a lava tube
      Of course the picture is not impressive (just a lot of smoke). The thing is that lava is very hot and, when she enters even warm waters of Pacific, the smoke is created.(Could not do anything about it).Of course I was hoping against hope that everybody would see at least something red (like lava, for example) beneath the smoke.I'm still glad you've got a hint of impression even from this not impressive picture that maybe it is impressive to see it in real. It really was and not only to see, but even to feel, to hear, to smell. Before we were able to see the lava, we felt that our feet were so hot that it was hard to bear. We looked down and saw a red lava in a crack of a lava tube just beneath our feet. Then we heard a cracking noise that did not sound good, but the picture is not impressive and really cannot show all the excitement, when you see, feel, hear and smell it in a real life.--Mbz1 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short Description

  •  Info School of Jacks at Papua New Guinea
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I was snorkeling by myself in Papua New Guinea. Suddenly I heard a strange sound, and in the next moment I found myself in huge school of jacks. I was not sure what was going on - maybe jacks were hunting, or maybe they were trying to get away from a bigger predator like a shark or barracuda. Whatever it was I suddenly did not feel comfortable in the water. I took few quick shots and swam away, and no, I was not bitten by any fish, not that time anyway. The picture was taken with 2 mega pixels camera (maybe not enough quality). On the other hand that Turtle was taken with the same camera and by same photographer and the image is currently FP. The composition could be confusing - there are too many of them, but for me it was rather amazing to see. I believe you all would agree with me that we do not have enough FP underwater pictures and now it is up to you to decide. I'll be happy with whatever you decide. For me the most important part was to see and to experience it, than to make the picture FP.--Mbz1 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Wow! I wonder though if it might look better if just a teensy bit of the top of the image was trimmed. The resolution is borderline, but given that underwater photography requires specialised equipment, I don't think we should be too strict on that count. Adam Cuerden 04:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose noisy, small -- Bjodr 09:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Small, but there are strong mitigating reasons for size. However, there is too much noise. --Digon3 talk 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Small can be ok, but it really is too noisy, and lacks overall sharpness. Too bad, some good underwater FP would have been nice. --Nattfodd 13:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose noisy, small -- Christof01 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Chaotic, distracting light. --Derbeth talk 08:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Thank you for letting me to share with you my "Chaotic","noisy","distracting light" adventure at least for a while 
result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Vache de Jersey 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). --MichaelMaggs 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

  •  InfoA male Crayfish (Astacidae) is digging his burrow.
  •  Infocolor = pink name = Astacidae; regnum = Animalia phylum = Arthropoda subphylum = Crustacea classis = Malacostraca ordo = Decapodasubordo = Pleocyemata infraordo = Astacidea superfamilia = Astacoideafamilia = Astacidaefamilia_authority = Latreille, 1802-1803 subdivision_ranks = [[Genus|Genera]subdivision= Astacus'Austropotamobius'Pacifastacus
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbz1 01:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice :) makes me hungry --Ice201 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Subject is hardly visible and is not properly identified. Picture moreover fails on composition and lighting. Lycaon 05:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ack Lycaon. - Keta 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'd like to tell you the story how I took the picture. Yesterday my friend and me went to the pond. We both had our cameras. I looked down at an interesting plant and saw a hole in a mud. I had no idea who dug the hole. It was empty. I showed it to my friend and said :"let's wait and see, if we could spot somebody." My friend was not fond of the idea. He told me: "Why to watch that empty hole? Let's better take pictures of these red sun-lit dragonflies." I've decided to wait next to the hole while my friend was taking pictures of dragonflies. In half-an-hour I've noticed some movement inside the hole. I called my friend with excitement and told him: "Look it is a crayfish hole. He came out." My friend told me: "So what. Only look at him - he's all covered with mud and who will like that "hole" composition! I'm sure it will not make a nice FP on Wikipedia." I've tried to argue that Wikipedia is for learning, that it is very, very, very rare to see a crayfish in process of digging his burrow, but my friend went back to taking pictures of red (and blue) dragonflies. While we were arguing the crayfish disappeared back inside the hole. So I waited for another half-hour and at last was able to take 2 quick shots. I proudly showed them to my friend. He was not impressed. He told me:"So what. In the end it is the results what matters."--Mbz1 12:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment As with all my nominations I like, when people vote and it does not matter, if these votes are "support" or "oppose". I'd rather 10 people oppose the picture than five support it. For me the only thing that matters is the count of the votes.--Mbz1 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Support Muddy...but very interesting! The subject is clearly identifiable with the explanations. The crayfish is not perfectly sharp but this picture has a great encyclopedic value. Vassil 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose a interesting and for sure useful photo. But quality- and composition-wise it is not a FP. Try to put it into the right articles in the wikipedias. Right now it doesnt even have a category or is in any gallery - this way it is quite difficult to find it for someone who needs such a pic. --AngMoKio 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Some organic matter in a hole. Why candidate for FP? --Karelj 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose awful composition. Please stop nominating images just for fun, it's really hard to take your nominations seriously -- Gorgo 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then do not take them seriously as I do not take seriously your comments. How, for example, one could take a comment about awful composition seriously. I did not make the composition. It is where Crayfishes live. I saw him again today and asked him to change the composition for one, two shots. I explained to him that many people did not like his muddy hole. He refused.--Mbz1 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Comment Now I'd like to be as serious as I could be after reading some of your comments. It is a very rare action picture of a very common but very difficult subject. The thing that the subject is common makes the picture even more interesting and valuable. Guidelines for nominators clearly specify that A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. Have you read this, Gorgo? Any troubles with understanding what it means? The nominated picture is not bad at all. It shows a Crayfish in his natural environment, working on his burrow. I could agree with comments about focus, about lighting, but I would never agree with comments about the composition. Maybe somebody will teach me (and I am very serious about that) what should have I done to improve the composition? Do not take the picture at all? Do not nominate it on FP? Should I have taken the subject out of his hole or maybe give him a bath before taking the picture? Any other ideas? Please do share them with me. I really like to learn for the next time. I also like to show you few more pictures that I hope will help you to understand how difficult that subject was. At each of the picture you could see only some part of the subject. Please note, most of the time I was able to see nothing, but an empty hole.

Do you like the composition any better Gorgo? Am I serious enough for you, Gorgo? I really hope I am because now I'd like to let you know that I will continue to nominate as many pictures as I want to nominate because I'm really enjoying reading your funny (being very polite here) comments, but mostly because some people do like my pictures. I also like to ask next opposers: If you could, please avoid the word "composition" in the count of the problems. Trust me, your "oppose" would be much more interesting to read, if you could come up with something new and original, like, for example Karelj did: "Some organic matter in a hole. Why candidate for FP?" So far it is the sole winner for that nomination. Mbz1 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

  •  Comment I want to add something to my upper statement. I really think that this is a very helpful picture. It is a great picture for the crayfish articles in the wikipedia. The composition is for sure not awful...and I think it is not OK to say things like that here. The picture is just not good enough for FP in my opinion. --AngMoKio 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that I don't come up with a detailed essay on why I don't think this picture is one of the best pictures on commons, but you sure don't help with flooding this page with dozens of "fun"-pictures. I'm also sorry if "awfull composition" might have sounded too derogative. When I mean "composition" I also mean the artistical value of the whole image itself not simply the arangement. My point is: this image is a mud covered clayfish in a mud-hole, you barely see the crayfish itself and lighting is also quite unfortunate, you can't be serious about this image being "one of the finest on Commons" (definition from COM:FP). A picture might not be one of the best on commons and still be good and valuable for illustrating an article on wikipedia, there is nothing wrong with that. -- Gorgo 09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing to be sorry you said "awfull composition". I do not consider any pictures that I nominated to be a fun-picture. The thing is that for me nominating pictures for fun is my way of surviving some comments. It is what I ment, when I said I nominate the pictures for fun. Maybe it is because of my brocken English I could not express what I meant properly. I am very serious in believing that this picture is "one of the finest on Commons" with great encyclopedic value. I agree the picture has problem wih lighting. I did not want to use the flash to scare him away. For me, the value of the image would have been lost, if that crayfish was out of his mud-hole. You see, you cannot imagine how I could be serious in nominating such a picture while I cannot imagine how one could be serious in complaining about the composition or the mud. I hope you will agree that everybody could have their own opinion.I'm still waiting for your advice how to improve the composition.--Mbz1 12:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
What I would do to improve it is brush away or get rid of some of the grass (assuming he won't break your finger off), and get a bit closer to the hole. I would then crop it so that there is no grass in the way of the picture. --Digon3 talk 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Digon3. I'm afraid I could have not used your advices for a few reasons. The grass is their camouflage. Few days ago I myself saw Red-shouldered Hawk taking a crayfish out of the pond. The picture is not sharp. Everything happened so fast, but I hope you still could see a crayfish in hawk's talons and the stream of water pouring down. So my first reason for not removing the grass was not to expose my subject to predators. My second reason for not removing the grass was not to destroy the burrow. It has more complex structure than you are able to see at the picture and I'm not sure how it holds all together. Some grass roots are inside the burrow. My third reason for not removing the grass was not to scare my subject away. He is very sensitive to any movement around the burrow. The last 2 reasons also explain why I did not want to get any closer than I've already been. By the way it is what makes my subject difficult. The last reason why I did not remove the grass and did not do a bigger crop is that my idea was to show a crayfish in his natural environment. In my opinion it brings the encyclopedic value of the picture up. Thank you again for taking your time and sharing your thoughts with me.--Mbz1 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose It's hard to tell what the picture really depicts. --Derbeth talk 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It "depicts" grass, the mud hole and a crayfish inside.--Mbz1 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • Great, but it could well be nearly everything. Featured pictures should be eyecatching and be focused on something if not spectacular, than at least interesting. I fully agree with Karelj and Gorgo. Nominating such pictures as FPs is a misunderstanding of the FP initiative. --Derbeth talk 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't worry. Forget about this pictures and all my other pictures too. Let's be friends. Please tell me something about yourself. What is your favorite movie, song, city,quotation? I for example like "My fair Lady". My favorite song is "Sunrise, Sunset" from "Fiddler on the Roof". My favorite city is San Francisco and my favorite quotation is: "There is no sin except stupidity." - Oscar Wilde--Mbz1 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Thank you all for the comments and the votes. Some of them were really funny.
result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: withdrawn => not featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Melanargia galathea, female 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A young Padaung hilltribe girl in Northern Thailand.

If she was in a place available to be photographed by tourists, no consent is needed. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --MichaelMaggs 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --MichaelMaggs 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Barque

Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The dome of the Notre Dame basilica of Boulogne (France)

Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lack of symmetry is secondary. Excellent perspective. --RedCoat 12:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice picture, maybe dimensions could be better if it will be square and not rectangle. --Karelj 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Strong support. The slight lack of symetry makes it look better. Could be slightly sharper. --Tos 11:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very nice, I like it a lot, especially the asymmetrical composition. The exposure is very good, the highlights are not much burned and there are many details in the low lights, but… the blue edge effect of the CCD around the windows should be corrected through a software, the image fails a little bit of dof for the statues and at the lower levels (use again the tripod, but with a higher F number – I don't know if you can choose it with the A620)… and the picture should be square, due to the composition. This last is the worse for this photograph. Sting 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 15:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Camp Fire 

result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. -- Lycaon 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Boat cemetery in France 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lighthouse in Barneget NJ.JPG

[edit]

Lighthouse in Barnaget, NJ USA

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. -- Lycaon 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
[edit]

Firefighters among the wreckage 

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 08:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Blowing Rock, North Carolina

Please say why you are opposing. --MichaelMaggs 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

All Gizaz pyramids in one shot 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:St Pauls Cathedral and Millennium Bridge.jpg

[edit]

Short description

Species - Belamcanda chinensis Doronenko 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 15:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Eriophorum vaginatum 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Firefighters remove remains of the A-320 crash

 Comment It's not racism because "Latin American" is not a race. But, let it be... Dantadd✉ 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't get your point...what do you want to say? Do you really think that this worldwide community has something against latin america?! Why should that be?! --AngMoKio 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't think that, but something is wrong, and people should "forgiven" minor technical flaws in order to have more featured pictures from Latin America. There are hundreds of featured pictures (maybe near a thousand), but Latin American subjects are less than 20. The numbers are eloquent enough, don't you think? Dantadd✉ 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sole reason to become a FP is my opinion the composition and the overall quality. I agree sometimes minor technical shouldn't count that much if the composition is really good. But again: to give a photo FP-status because we have only few photos in the FPs of that certain topic can never be a reason. --AngMoKio 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh this is ridiculous: can I next start to complain about Africa, which is far larger and more populous than South America, yet has far less FP's? That's not the point of FP. It's just about selecting the best commons has to offer, and if South America doesn't offer, we can't select! Lycaon 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's is just a lame excuse for obstructionism. I didn't mention Africa, but the same obstacles apply. Technical questions are important, but minor flaws should be forgiven in order to have more equity. But by the signals the decision makers here have given that's not gonna happen. It's a shame, because if this exact same scene (flaws included) was from a terrorist attack in London I have NO DOUBT the picture would be selected. Dantadd✉ 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly shows your personal bias. Also in Europe mitigation for technical flaws is not that forgiving (see e.g. ([11]). Lycaon 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my bias, it's my opinion. I'm not saying that European or US subjects are forgiven for technical flaws. I'm saying that little technical flaws should be forgiven in order to have more equity. This is not an election for QUALITY picture (there your views are perfect), but for featured picture, and it's shameful the incredible numeric difference between the continents. We have to take some affirmative actions here... Dantadd✉ 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Dantadd, I absolutely agree with you that the picture value should overwrite most technical flaws. After all the reader of Wikipedia (the ones, who do not vote here) will never-ever even notice most problem opposing people are talking about. I also agree that FP has too many pictures of very, very common insects and even more common flowers. I could not agree more that "this is not an election for QUALITY picture". As you see I was the first one to support the both pictures of that horrible tragedy. Yet I cannot agree with you that people, who opposing these pictures, would have voted in different way, if the pictures were taken in Europe or North America. Some(maybe even most) people here put a quality of the image much above the image's value. Sometimes I feel like it is a photo forum of professional photographers and I do not like it at all, but I'm afraid it is the way it is. One guy from that Photo Forum once told me that, if I'm to take a picture of an alien in an alien spacecraft, and the picture is not perfect, he would oppose it. Oh well, I felt sorry for him...--Mbz1 01:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
"if this exact same scene (flaws included) was from a terrorist attack in London [...] the picture would be selected"? A similar scene was photographed in NY in 2001, and uploaded two years ago (Image:September 14 2001 Ground Zero 01.jpg), and it hasn't been featured, though it's as impressive and useful as this one (though I find more emotive this one of the couple of firefighters looking downwards). I think humans deserve equity but photographs nor photo subjects don't. If we haven't been able to find excellent and informative images of Panama or Uruguay, the solution is to look harder, nor to lower the requirements. I opposed featuring the noisy image of this event's aftermath, but I nominated this one, despite of its want of contrast between figures and foreground, cause I thought its other values and the uniqueness of the moment could mitigate its technical flaws. I don't think that Image:NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle.jpg is technically better than this one -of course I acknowledge other people here know more about photogrpah than me-, but I understand than the circumstances the moon image was taken in increase its value as a FP. --Javier ME 22:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I didn't know that... Then, explain something to me: why so many people are eager to get FP status to their pictures? And more, why some many people are eager to criticize pictures here as it was a QUALITY picture contest? Another one: why we have 500 US pictures, 400 European pictures and very very few Latin American or African pictures? If this election applies the same concepts used in Quality Picture why do we have two elections? Dantadd✉ 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If 0.01% of all picture posted achieve FP status, then there is a clear positive bias towards Latin American pictures!! It is all a game of volume, quality and potential. There is no conspiracy, be assured!!. Lycaon 12:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy, I'm not (that) naïf. I'm asking you to be more compliant with certain subjects in order to have a little bit more equity here. Just that, it's not that difficult. Dantadd✉ 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering why people try to get FP status. Maybe more Wikipedia readers see FP pictures compare to not FP pictures. I know at least one guy here, who sells his pictures. His license is kind of free, and kind of not free. Does FP status help to sell the pictures? Who knows. I, for example, nominating my pictures mostly for fun. Some comments that people make about my pictures are really funny. I do not care at all, if a picture will get FP status or it will not. Please take a look at that Nomination. It was passing, with no one opposing it (I believe Lycaon was still in Namibia), but I withdrawn the nomination because the flower is too common and was not taken in South Africa, where that plant is native, but in a botanical garden. On the other hand, please take a look at that nomination. I took the picture of the girl at Madagascar. I believed, if one looks into her eyes, he would forget everything, as I did, when I first saw her. As you could see it was not the case.Yet I'm sure the picture was opposed not because it was taken in Africa. By the way it is the truth that even not FP pictures are used and looked at. At least one of my pictures was published in a bib magazine in Italy. They even never contacted me, but my freind, who lives in Italy bought the magazine and saw my picture there. At first I was surprised -I 've never submmited the picture to that magazine, but then I knew - they took it from Wikipedia. By the way, if I am to nominate that picture here to get FP status, it will never pass;) Do I care? No I do not.--Mbz1 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  •  Oppose There are no mitigating reasons for the low quality. In daytime lighting, there isn't an excuse for this blur. It's not like this was taken with a little point -and-shoot either, this was taken with a very capable camera, but the photographer did not accomplish a technically excellent picture. -- Ram-Man 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Kirby's Dropwing

Kirby's Dropwing (Trithemis kirbyi) in Tsumeb, Namibia.
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 08:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
EXAMPLE: Existing FP of the same species

Inachis io 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 08:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brujo by Kamiya.jpg

[edit]
  •  Info Created,uploaded and nominated by User:Archivaldo--Archivaldo 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You need to specify a source for this - who took the photo, and what license is it released under. Also be aware that there may be copyright issues about the statuette. By default, Kamiya probably stills owns that copyright, even while you own the copyright to the picture of the state. So both sculpture and photographer would need to give permission, unless Kamiya has explicitly transfered the copyright to someone else? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Lycaon 10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dientes Sable.jpg

[edit]

Image:Aeshna cyanea - young male (aka).jpg, kept

[edit]
EXAMPLE: FP of the same species

Aeshna cyanea 

result: 5 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => kept. --MichaelMaggs 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Orthetrum cancellatum.jpg, delisted

[edit]
EXAMPLE: Better featured picture of the same species

Orthetrum cancellatum 

result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calopteryx splendens 20050729 504.jpg, kept

[edit]
EXAMPLE: Better similar FP of a different species

Calopteryx splendens 

result: 4 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => kept. --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MandarinDucks.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Two Mandarin Ducks. 

result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Lycaon 05:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horse-racing-4.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Horse racing 

result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Lycaon 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinguicula vulgaris.JPG

[edit]

Short description

Image:Orangerie.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Lycaon 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Venus de Milo edited.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Lycaon 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tagpfauenauge.jpg, delisted

[edit]
Higher quality FP of the same species
Higher quality FP nomination of the same species

Nymphalis io 

result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Lycaon 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple underidentified insects

[edit]

Normally we have one page per candidate. Under the circumstances, I think one page for all of these insects is reasonable. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole Multiple underidentified insects thing here is nonsens Lets find it out--Makro Freak talk 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. It's important to be as precise as we can, and no more so. If we can id the species, we do so. Otherwise, we id the genus, or if we can't do that, the family. If we think we can ID it but we're not sure, then we do our best, but we also put in the word "probably" or "possibly". It takes time, but it is important - it's a major part of the value of the pictures, possibly the major part in some ways. And if I can say this, it increases my respect for your work, it's not just pointing a camera at an interesting bug, it's also knowing the bug, or finding out, a lot more work than I would have thought. I'd like to thank you for the time you're spending on it, and also thank Kulac as well because even though this causes stress now, it does improve these images greatly. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you mean, admire your sense for diplomacy and agree. I allways did my best concerning the ID and welcome any improvement on a cooperative way. With nonsense (sorry for my english, iam not a native speaker) or better said "mischief" i meant the procedure which was applied here. Is this delisting, the right way to force a user to reconsider his ID investigations again ? I would say this must be done in a discussion, not like this. I excuse myself if i was to snappy or was running riot, but before, there was a really harsh and uncooperative | calling by this user on my german userpage, so excuse if iam still remain in my natural skepticalness. I found that calling just monstrous. Iam a artist and not made for harsh, Wikipedialike discussions ... to tell the truth, i cannot handle that. Sorry. --Makro Freak

Hmmmm, it's making me pretty sad to read this discussion and the related ones :-(
Makro Freak and Kulac, you are both doing marvellous work here regarding images – but with a very contrary focus (photo-optical vs. scientific). – Well, sometimes anger appears unexpectedly. This happens one and then, also in real life. It's not specific for Wikimedia projects.
So regardless of the bitterness that already occured … why not simply determine what exactly can be said about an object? If it's another species as it is said atm, I'm sure, Makro Freak will re-upload it under another name. The FP status could stay in such cases imo (it would only need some linkfixes and an additional note on the vote). And well, if one can't determine the species of one of the insects, then renaming to something more general like "Pretty_green_bug_(Curculionidae,_undet.).jpg" or so ;-) should be sufficient. This should also not be a big problem, I hope. --Überraschungsbilder 01:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesnt open it up for me, how someone offends a user because he assumed that a id could be wrong, started by a edit war on description pages. Its not cooperative to just crossing out a description, if he dont know it better. Compared with this harrasment at work, contributing to insect-pages is more thankful --Makro Freak 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phyllobius calcaratus spornblattrüßler quadrat.jpg, kept

[edit]

Phyllobius calcaratus

  •  Delist this picture does NOT properly show the species Phyllobius calcaratus. User:Makro Freak undid my edit on the picture, even though he agreed with me, that the identification about the species is not possible and he is not able to identify it. the action of Makro Freak is irresponsible, because misidentified pictures are the worst thing happening to wikipedia and commons. --Kulac 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Phyllobius for shure. Calcaratus or argentatus ? Even Etomolgists wasnt shure, the tendency was calcaratus. --Makro Freak talk 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, you can´t say if it is Phyllobius or Polydrusus you only see the differences on the sides of the head. rename the picture to Curculionidae, the familiy is the only possible taxon, you can determine. --Kulac 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why you took your precious time to post this delisting, instead of correcting it to Curculionidae, if you know it better. Iam not a entomologist. Iam a photographer. --Makro Freak talk 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phyllobius
Polydrusus
i ALREADY TOOK my precious time changing the description page (see here: [12]), but you reverted my edit! noone wants you to be an entomologist, but a responsible photographer does not throw his pictures in here, naming them the way he likes. --Kulac 16:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the name i liked, it was the information i gathered from diptera.info. And why you dont discussed this with me ? --Makro Freak talk 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i discussed with you, i told you where you could possibly identify the species; the german wikipedia has a very competent portal for that. but actually you didn´t listen to me. btw: diptera.info gives informations about DIPTERA --Kulac 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False, http://www.diptera.info/forum/viewforum.php?forum_id=6, and can you please stop to harrash me anymore. --Makro Freak talk 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep Judging by the picture, not the title. Kulac, could you please talk to Makro Freak about this on his talk page before nominating to delist? And please be civil. Most of us are just photographers, and Makro Freak tried his best to identify it. Thanks. --Digon3 talk 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
last edit for me here, i´m not wasting time anymore: you want to feature a picture, not knowing what it actually shows? and with this picture you will never know!...then go ahead. --Kulac 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not die stupid ? --Makro Freak talk 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Judging from the teeth on the femurs and the pointed antennae, this is indeed Phyllobius calcaratus. Polydrusus species have smooth femurs!. Lycaon 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the only way to distinguish those two genera is, to look at the base of the antenna. there you see the black cavities, which make the difference. you can´t distinguish the genera from the picture taken from above. and even IF you could, it would be difficult to determine the species. --Kulac 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. Why you dont took this effort, you demonstrate here, to aquire the propper id on its description? I would welcome that, because this is how Wikipedia is working, instead of doing it during a baseless delisting. --Makro Freak 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, it started with your revert of my edits, showing, that the species is not propperly identified. and now please stop flaming me, for showing up a problem. --Kulac 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edits? singular, please ... not plural. This is not a delisting problem. --Makro Freak 18:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sources (C. Schott, 1999, Catalogue et Atlas des Coléoptères d’Alsace – tome 10 : Curculionidae 1 (Cimberidae, Rhynchitidae, Attelabidae, Apionidae 2)) distinguish those two genera on the base of the toothed femura. This is visible. I have no access to German identification literature though (Hartmann-Schröder on polychaetes excluded). Lycaon 18:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my source is Freude - Harde - Lohse: Die Käfer Mitteleuropas, which is actually the german benchmark at coleoptera. hmm i can´t look it up today, so i have to believe, what you say, but at least the cavities i described above have to be mentioned in your book too. that what i wrote was discussed with a friend of mine, who is an entomologist, at the time, the picture showed up in de.wiki. --Kulac 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i got the answer from user:siga: he thinks that this beetle is indeed a Phyllobius, because he can see the mportant parts of the antennal base, but he wouldn´t be sure about the species. the best would be to reupload the picture with the genus name. if Lycaon is sure about the species, i wil believe him. --Kulac 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it was a quick stop, because of this unpleasant thing here. Richie --213.13.106.226 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eupeodes lapponicus on jeans.jpg, kept

[edit]

i trust you, if you prove the proper identification by an expert. but the beetle of the picture above can´t even be determined by an expert, because the only important details are not shown, and even with them it would be hardly possible! --Kulac 16:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, iam not in the mood for this nonsense. As i said iam not a Entomolgist, so you cannot trust me, and i would say even the friendly people at diptera.info, insektenbox or www.entomologie.de could be wrong. Should every Article on Wikipedia be proved by Brockhaus, Britannica or Diderot before they will hbe released? Maybe some real expert would stumble over this picture and give it the 100% correct identification, and in the meantime its ok to life with the convergence. Thats how Wikipedia is working --Makro Freak talk 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
paste the link here and i will be satisfied. but it is NOT OK to life with the convergence. i know what i´m telling about the beetle, so i know the way you did your work. i´m sure the diptera pictures can be identified by a knowing person, so if so everything will be fine with them here. so where is your problem? --Kulac 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more justification . . .I paste you some nice regards from a retired Wikimedia photographer. Your behaviour and the very uncooperative discussion on my german wikipedia site which i transferred to your wikimedia userpage, shows me again why i wasnt wrong to gain distance to WikimediaWikipedia. --Makro Freak talk 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so, here we go, i am not an expert in identifying hoverflys, but i can read books. Syrphus torvus has got 2 linked yellow stripes on the back of the abdomen (see here: [13]), our picture here shows up 3 rowns of 2 yellow spots, that are not linked. guess you belief me now?
there are many possible ways in my identification-guid here, so i can´t be sure, but the genus is probably eupeodes (compare with Eupeodes lapponicus here: [14]). an identification from an expert is very necessary. --Kulac 16:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look on the eyes: if they have hairs, than it is indeed torvus; if it is bare - vitripennis --Makro Freak talk 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a cup of tea and watch this There is no history, so i cant find the old request, but iam shure the friendly people at diptera.info will identify it again--Makro Freak talk 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they say its a female Eupeodes lapponicus. Kahis is very smart, i wished he identified it on the first request. --Makro Freak talk 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, its the one, i assumed, a few lines above. thank you for clearing that out. did you also put the Calliphora vicina in the forum? --Kulac 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
watch this --Makro Freak talk 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thricops semicinereus on Ranunculus acris.jpg, kept

[edit]

i found the discussion on diptera.info, this species is properly identified. --Kulac 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for double check ;) --Makro Freak talk 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This badname thing works not well for me. I tried it once and the picture disappeared. It should be done by a admin. --Makro Freak talk 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it for you then. What is the correct name for this image going to be? --Digon3 talk 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a Thricops semicinereus, but you have to take care about the usage, Digon --Makro Freak 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. CommonsDelinker should replace all usage with the correct one 10 minutes after deletion. If not, I can always restore the image. --Digon3 talk 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Makro Freak talk 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thricops semicinereus on Ranunculus acris diagonal.jpg, kept

[edit]

same specimen, identifcation proven --Kulac 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for double check ;) --Makro Freak talk 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calliphora vicina diagonal.jpg, kept

[edit]

Its Calliphora vicina. It costs me hours to find that out. --Makro Freak 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong  Keep To the best of ones knowledge, I see no problem here. --Makro Freak talk 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png, kept

[edit]

Short description 

result: rule of the fifth day (only one oppose by nominator) => kept. -- Lycaon 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

[edit]

Chamber of Deputies of Brazil 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hungry House Martins 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description 

result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Hmm, the shade is what I like about this picture. --Digon3 talk 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Abschlussfeier 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Sint-Andries (Bruges, Belgium): Tudor Castle 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) Simonizer 08:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Maine coon Kitten 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 08:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

African Harrier-Hawk, adult 

result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 5th day) --Simonizer 08:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tockus erythrorhynchus 0028.jpg

[edit]

Tockus erythrorhynchus

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main object is unfocussed. -- Lycaon 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Corvus albus 0013.jpg

[edit]

Corvus albus

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main object is unfocussed. -- Lycaon 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Image:Chaetodermis penicilligerus.5 - Aquarium Finisterrae.JPG

[edit]

Chaetodermis penicilligerus

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the main object is overexposed and unfocussed. -- Lycaon 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2007&oldid=550769459"