Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Caligo eurilochus 3 Richard Bartz.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Caligo eurilochus
- Reason
- Technical quality and encylopaedic value.
- Articles this image appears in
- Caligo eurilochus
- Creator
- Richard Bartz
- Support as nominator Samsara noadmin (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Excellent pic. Clegs (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 per nom. Ba'Gamnan (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support DurovaCharge! 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- weak oppose good quality pic. but I think recently there have been lots of butterfly pics as FP. and one more....don't know what to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gppande (talk • contribs) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Too many butterfly FP's is in no way a valid criterion for opposing. How is it that being a part of a group of commonly photographed subjects detract from the value of this image specifically? Also, Support. --Mad Tinman T C 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's criterion no. 3.--Svetovid (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... meaning that all butterflies form a single subject (there are about 150,000 known species)? What about mammals? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Butterflies are a type of insect, grouped together by similarity in characteristics, which is why they can be grouped more tightly then the looser group of mammals. Still, the fact that the Order: Lepidoptera is often photographed in no way detracts from the value of this photo itself, in fact, this photo just adds to our compendium of photos that well illustrate the variety of the order.. Also, how can "Is among Wikipedia's best work." be intrepreted as "Too many FP's that represent similar animals can't be had"? That one just bewilders me. --Mad Tinman T C 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Mad Tinman (and Gppande). Ranked taxonomies are not comparable across big evolutionary gaps. That Mammals are a "Class" and Lepidoptera an "Order" is essentially meaningless. Both groups evolved at the same time btw, and have had therefore the same amount of time to diversify genetically and phenotypically. de Bivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me justify my vote here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should cover all aspects of human knowledge. Special attention to one particular /subject/science/people/art/literature....etc would mean it is not truely encylopedic. For new comer if he sees same topic picture everyday on homepage it sends wrong signal. I have nothing against the picture and its truely amazing to qualify as featured picture. My opinion is there should some time gap if same subject pictures are to qualify as FP. gppande (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Mad Tinman (and Gppande). Ranked taxonomies are not comparable across big evolutionary gaps. That Mammals are a "Class" and Lepidoptera an "Order" is essentially meaningless. Both groups evolved at the same time btw, and have had therefore the same amount of time to diversify genetically and phenotypically. de Bivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Butterflies are a type of insect, grouped together by similarity in characteristics, which is why they can be grouped more tightly then the looser group of mammals. Still, the fact that the Order: Lepidoptera is often photographed in no way detracts from the value of this photo itself, in fact, this photo just adds to our compendium of photos that well illustrate the variety of the order.. Also, how can "Is among Wikipedia's best work." be intrepreted as "Too many FP's that represent similar animals can't be had"? That one just bewilders me. --Mad Tinman T C 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Too many butterfly FP's is in no way a valid criterion for opposing. How is it that being a part of a group of commonly photographed subjects detract from the value of this image specifically? Also, Support. --Mad Tinman T C 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support original - Yes, it is beautiful, but a little dark for enc purposes. Also, I would like to see more detail (more resolution) on the head and body - Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose edited version. For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his picture if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see any ethical problems in modifying a picture that has been released under a free license. If the author didn't want his images modified he shouldn't have done as much. Regardless, I support either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I wouln't like it if it were my picture. Why rush to edit this particular photo when the author is a well known photographer perfectly able to do the job? Not a question of "right" but of elegance. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see any ethical problems in modifying a picture that has been released under a free license. If the author didn't want his images modified he shouldn't have done as much. Regardless, I support either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose edited version. For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his picture if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Juliancolton (The Giants Win!) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Edit 1 Fairly good sharpness and detail and I really like the background. --Fir0002 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support original per nom. Lycaon (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1 nice. de Bivort 21:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support both Well done. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support both Very nice background compensates for the only average sharpness. Otherwise it's great. -- RM 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support edit 1. I wanted to oppose the original for being too dark but now it's OK.--Svetovid (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support original per nom. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support original -- Laitche (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support original -- Edit loses drama. pschemp | talk 05:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Promoted Image:Caligo eurilochus 3 Richard Bartz.jpg MER-C 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
