Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Apis mellifera (by) (1).jpg

File:ComputerHotline - Apis mellifera (by) (1).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 07:09:24

•  Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely detail. Julielangford (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. No. Is this a unique subject? No! Is this the best work we have on this subject? No! I can only urge everybody to look at the existing FP File:Apis_mellifera_carnica_drone_postnatal.jpg and the gallery on its description page. --Dschwen (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't know that subjects needed to be unique to be nominations for FP. Do they? Can someone clear that up for this newbie please. Julielangford (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I personally think that this one is much better than the file you have suggested. This one is in focus throughout, where as the other one is blurred in many places where it would be better crisp. It is also a great image of honeycomb. Sorry, but this one is better IMO. Julielangford (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Disagree, and we have way better pictures of honeycombs as well. --Dschwen (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • @Dschwen : "the once subject" is not an argue. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That is correct, which is why I did not make this argument. Please reread my statement carefully. The gist is that we have plenty of much better pictures. It doesn't even matter if they are FP or no. This is not commons' best work. --Dschwen (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand what you are saying, and of course, your opinion is important to you. That's fine. As for much better pictures, finer pictures, I am not sure I really get what you mean. From where I stand, it reads like this, if someone takes an A class, beautiful photograph, that is fine in everyway it can be, should it be excluded from nomination, based on the fact that there are better ones? If that is the case, this page would be pretty redundant in no time at all. Julielangford (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • your opinion is important to you?! Uhm, what? Anyhow. To answer you question: yes, the photographer should try to take a step back from his work, compare it with other pictures we have and in a case like this not nominate it. It is a matter of courtesy and respect for other peoples work. Why should we put a star on this picture if there is better work? --Dschwen (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It is a matter of courtesy and respect for other peoples work! That's exactly the point. As far as I am aware, more than one piece of work can have a star on it. Maybe it's no better than some images, but maybe its no worse, than others, and as long as it's not set in stone that there should only be one FP of any one subject, then I see nothing wrong in nominating new ones. Julielangford (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm with Dschwen here. The File:Apis_mellifera_carnica_drone_postnatal.jpg series sets the standard, and fact is that almost every picture in the series is of higher quality and better composition than the candidate. I'd rather feature one of those. This inevitably leads to the "Arthropod Issue" again, please see the vivid discussion currently going on at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Opinions_on_the_.22Arthropod_Issue.22 and, if possible, take part in it. -- JovanCormac 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of the "series" only this one has as good composition as nominated photo, and it doesn't have as good background. —kallerna™ 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Me like --Korall (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like it. Shure, to see part of a bee with such an enlargement is something spectacular and the surface of the wings is interesting. But the picture is sharpened too much, the light is a bit harsh. The bee doesn't stand out well from the distracting background, an ugly dark honeycomb with damaged cells that must have been outside a healthy colony during the last time. The curved posture of the bee is disadvantageous. The abdomen and the head cannot be seen well, especially the mouthparts and the antennae. There are some intestesting details, but the whole is not very good. --wau > 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with Julielangford. --Lošmi (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)