Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg

File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 14:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg

•  Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Peter23 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nice picture: an obvious QI and, probably, VI. But there are just too many FP of the same kind and this one is not exceptional in any aspect. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alves and based on the new discussion on talk page; need to feature only the most exceptional ones. JKadavoor Jee 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also noticed that this kind of images seem to have monopolized this page. Sorry but the time has come to change and innovate. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, There are too many FP of the same kind. --Tonchino 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This is a stunning image, with a great wow-effect. We need featurable pictures of every species in the world. I'll support other featurable images of this species showing it in its natural habitat, also of the larva, the adult during egg-laying... though this is certainly a very long way to go. It's not the fault of the authors of this type of images, if other subjects are less well covered. Just my opinion. --Cayambe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nice butterflies! Having to many FP like this is not acceptable to vote oppose.Alborzagros (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Per Cayambe, strongly. --Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I do not often come on this contest FP. But I'm still very proud to see my pictures. I've never taken a photo for this courcours. This is a study. This butterfly is considered one of the most beautiful, but it is difficult to photograph. A white background lose the edge of the lower wings and a black background comes into confrontational with dark wings. Must try a raking light. The result was not bad. But I know I can do better. I'll vote for it, because at the moment this is the best picture we have of this species. I know and especially the time I spent. Scientific photography is often thankless. We need to attract scientists from other photographers. I think the images in micosocopes or CT imaging. Do not lose sight of the goal. We need to nourish an encyclopedia. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I still believe there is no need to feature all of them; there are 723 pictures already under Category:Muséum de Toulouse collection of Lepidoptera. They all are high quality works (QI and VI); but IMHO only a few need to be featured. Further, featuring all of them will only helps to spoil the highlighting your best works in Commons effect of FP. What is the meaning in browsing Category:Featured pictures by User:Archaeodontosaurus if all of your works are FP. With respect, JKadavoor Jee 09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support As Archaeodontosaurus. Only a photographer knows the trouble it takes to make these --Muhammad (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• We've a proverb: fishing in muddy waters. This is just a friendly mess. Don't try to make benefit from it. We were friends, are, and will be for ever. JKadavoor Jee 09:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Frienship" has nothing to do here, dear Jee...--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Not only a picture alone, also a time-consuming work combined with a large amount of experience can produce a "Wow-effect" --Llez (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm afraid Tonchino's and Jacopo Werther's votes are invalid and should not count, because only based on wrong criteria, not in the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment I won't oppose (the image is too pretty) though I feel the same as Alvesgaspar, but you can't invalidate those votes. Then you would have to cancel half of the support votes for many of the candidates on FPC.  B.p. 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    •  Comment@BP: I won't discuss this with you, because you are old enough in these pages, and therefore I think you understand very well what I mean...;)--Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It seems this type of works can be considered as semi-institutional; and the original concern about featuring institutional pictures are by you. JKadavoor Jee 04:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • This is false: the images are made ​​by Wikipedians. The museum gives us access to its collections, but does not affect photographs. But on second thought ... I'm willing to be an institution.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Would like to take it in the spirit. Know you've enough knowledge and experience to distinguish real well-wishers from adulators. JKadavoor Jee 05:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Jee, it is hard to follow you in this marmelad mixing of concepts. I'm a member of Wikimedia France, and we try to increase contacts with Institutions in order to have the privilege in taking unusual pictures in good conditions (Château de Versailles, Musée de Cluny, Notre-Dame de Paris, Museum of Toulouse etc...). That's why we (Wikimedians) tag our picture file pages with logos or labels of these institutions. Be happy that the rule here is to "assume good faith"...As for me, EOD.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very good work. --JLPC (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Because there are lot of FP of butterflies since the beginning.--Citron (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This butterfly is really Wow. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods