Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2016 - 753.jpg

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

File:Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka, December 2016 - 753.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 13:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern great egret landing at Tennōji Park in Osaka.
  • PumpkinSky I don't think your comments are fair. Opinions expressed on what constitutes an image being among "the finest on Commons" are not restricted to a bounded set of "rules". The nomination, particularly when it had a dark background, was rather similar to the previous one. That's not an uncommon complaint at FP, over the years, and sometimes the complaint is echoed and sometimes there are times we support anyway. It is also common to compare a nomination to its peers. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin You seem to not be realizing that when I wrote that the ONLY objection Charles had posted was "We already have another FP image of this bird landing by User:Laitche. I don't think we want two." So I feel my comment was completely fair because there is no rule about how many similar photos one user can have. I do not consider such an objection valid. Charles had not commented on the photo's merits at that point. Note below that Ikan pretty much agrees with me. It was only later that Charles made comments on the merits of the photo. Now if you're going to still say a nominator can't have more than one similar photo, we'll just have to agree to disagree. PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky, no I didn't make a mistake. Your assumption "there is no rule" => "invalid objection" is simply false. Or, to use your argument, where is the rule that says all oppose reasons must come from one of the following community agreed options:....." I'm not saying a nominator can't have more than one similar photo. Please do not put words in my mouth. I explained to you that objections such as this occur not uncommonly over the years at FP, and sometime there is agreement and sometimes disagreement. You and Ikan were free to suggest we can have any number of egrets landing in Osaka with a dark background (as it was then) and others are free to say that we have one already and this no better. By all means disagree with Charles, but his oppose isn't invalid on any FPC-rules grounds. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin We'll just have to disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. I see no reason to belabor the point beyond this. PumpkinSky talk 13:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky Wrt to your "inventing rules again" complaint, this isn't something you can just "agree to disagree" on, but an argument you would do well to avoid in future. Vigorously disagree with someone if you like, but the "rules and standards" are open, not closed. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, YOO HOO. It was all quiet for days until YOU started rattling your sabre here today, so it is in "your" hands, not mine. Now since you didn't understand my prior two requests, I'll put it in plain English, leave me alone, drop it, now. PumpkinSky talk 15:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PumpkinSky, please relax a bit. My perception (though I could be wrong) is that Colin functions in part as a kind of elder statesman at FPC. There is much that anyone can learn from him. It's great that you're passionate, but when things work well at FPC (and also at VIC and so forth), the discussions are based rather more on dispassionate discourse than personal attacks or refusal to engage in good-faith dialogue or concede the possibility that you could be wrong. I think it's fair to assume that anyone taking part here is passionate about photography or at least has views about what is or is not a good photo to them - that's all to the good. But dialing back one's personal feelings so as to work well with others is basic to all Wikis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan, the "elder" bit is sadly becoming more apparent every day. Well, I'm no angel when it comes to sometimes being a big too passionate in a disagreement, though nothing was ever achieved by folk who simply sit and watch the world go by. Let's put this disagreement behind us. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  QuestionI'm a bit new to FP, so I have a follow-up to this question; the Guidelines say: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted". My question is how similar two images have to be before they are considered "different versions of the same image"?--Peulle (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle, delisting where a superior replacement is promoted instead occurs a handful of times a year. It typically happens when someone takes or uploads a better copy of an artwork or historical (restored) photo, but can also occur if a user re-processes their own photo (either with more resolution or better processing technique) and where they had not simply overwritten the old file. We try to discourage people overwriting files for artworks that have a different source for the JPG (though some users still persist in doing so against policy) so we can end up with several files for the same artwork that are of different quality (and often different colour/contrast/etc). It may also occur for illustrations improvements such as if someone creates an SVG to replace a PNG. For a photo of a natural subject, I guess if someone retook a photo that really was a superior direct equivalent then a delist/replace might be justified. But otherwise we tend to retain the old one. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle: I think that same image means "the same image", not similar image. --Laitche (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Different versions of the same image" means a different processing of the same image. It can include images taken in the same set with same composition too. But a different composition like dorsal and ventral view of same animal is considered different even though taken at same time. Same view taken in a different day is usually considered distinct as the other components in the composition will be different. Though the reviewers have a tendency not to promote so many images of the same subject, they usually allow two or three FPs of famous places or buildings. So the judging factor is usually a combination of how much difference in the composition and how important the subject is. Jee 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so there can be several different FPs of the same species of bird or the same building if there are several such images taken from the same angle and same conditions? Obviously, a night shot of a church will be different from a day shot, but if two photographers stand in the same place and photograph the same object, can both their images be FP?--Peulle (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little chances as the reviewers evaluate every images of a subject and vote in favor of the best. The difficulty is when a better image uploaded later. Such new images will be featured when nominated. We've a process to delist previous FPs; but it is rarely used and is intended for very low quality FPs, not to delist the second best. The "delist and replace" is a new process which is only used for replacing a newly processed image of previous FP. All these procedures are a bit complicated and we don't have a strong concept like only one FP as in VI. But reviewers are free to oppose a nomination if better images is available or whatever another reason they feel fit. Jee 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of them is much better than the other, I think so. But looking at them, they both appear to be of similarly high quality, so my question was simply: "should there be only 1 FP of that species of bird landing?" As I understand the Guidelines and , there can be more than one FP of the same subject ... however, if there are many photos of the same subject (e.g. 10.000 images of the Eiffel Tower) on Commons, I would say only very few of those can be FP, since the Guideline states: "The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent.". Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, I will  Support this image for FP but with the caveat that if you keep uploading these photos of egrets landing, the old images of them could be delisted as the new ones take over as FPs. Does that sound reasonable?--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - This is IMO an FP photo. Charles, how many great paintings of cranes were done by classic Japanese painters? Would you also limit how many of those paintings to feature, independent of determinations of quality? Laitche has 6 FPs under Category:Ardea alba modesta. Perhaps that's a large number, to your estimation, but is it really too many? Too many for what? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these were significantly different types of images or of especially quality, then I wouldn't have opposed. The sharpness is OKish but the water is strange and the contrast/composition nothing special. It's also too dark. Charles (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, so I changed my vote. Still weak because of the water, but the Bird is great. --Hockei (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hockei, the background is water reflection of the woods. --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Eastern_great_egret_landing_at_Tennōji_Park_in_Osaka,_December_2016_-_753.jpg&oldid=296808543"