Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Escarabajo (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 546-573 FS.jpg

File:Escarabajo (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 546-573 FS.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2020 at 11:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Escarabajo (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 546-573 FS.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Escarabajo (Chrysolina sturmi), Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2020-06-28, DD 546-573 FS.jpg

1546

2902

491

327

6838

4762

This bit af background shouldn't be blurred - see the bit in front of the beetle

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Chrysomelidae (Leaf Beetles)
•  Info Focus stacked macro shot (out of 28 frames) of a specimen of Chrysolina sturmi, Hartelholz, Munich, Germany. The metallic purple beetle can be found in Europe and Western Asia and is 6–10 mm (0.24–0.39 in) long. Poco a poco (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I take over as the nominator if no one minds. - Benh (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I mind, since it's against the rules without the author's consent. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support very high quality. Buidhe (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support never even heard of "Hartelholz" before --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support good sharpess here. --Ivar (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ivar I crossed July 1st on my calendar... :) Now seriously you cannot definitely expect here the same quality like in the butterfly's head. This shot is indeed challenging but still in the area of 2x magnification, the other one is a 10x magnification, and maybe 5 times more complicated. Poco a poco (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support very nice. U aren't stealing them? ;) - Benh (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. See note for background improvement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Didn't notice it was identified as a specimen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Excellent, I am enjoying this series of focus stacks. Cmao20 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Support, but I don't understand how this is 2x magnification. It's much bigger than twice actual size, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Info@Ikan Kekek: In macro photography, 2x (or: 2:1) magnification means the physical image of the subject (beetle) that was projected by the lens onto the sensor (or film) was 2x the size of the original beetle. Has nothing to do with how large the beetle looks in print or on the screen. See also Commons:Photography_terms#Macro. --El Grafo (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. I get it - you're starting with 2x magnification but can zoom in after that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Dead or alive?--Ermell (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Specimens (as stated above) are always dead... Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --StellarHalo (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Also withdrawing this one per my feedback here. It was all a mistake, enjoy the USGS images done with unlimited ressources, equipment, specimens and so on. Whe have huge gaps in Commons regarding macro photography although those images are of high value for Wikipedia, so it's a pity that when somebody trys to begin to tackle this field the answer are attacks about the work and the equipment used. We just hope that the USGS uploads more free material from their trials to enrich the project, this user will not do it anymore. Sorry for wasting your time here. Poco a poco (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Poco, my friend, please get a hold of yourself! You have unanimous support for this nomination. If you won't host it, would you at least permit me to serve as the nominator? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Let's do it. I'll take over the nom if it's fine with everyone else. Poco, I'm not sure why the withdrawal. That's a remarkable shot whatever criticism we may have on other shots. - Benh (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Benh, but you can't just take over a nomination withdrawn by the author without getting their ok to do so. We've just had a discussion about this on the Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#What does mean this case of "General rules"?. Barging in and usurping rules like this is not good. I urge you to undo your edits and respect an author's right to withdraw a nomination whatever their reasons are. --Cart (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I could renominate this and it would be fine. But that would be wasting time and we've been wasting time a lot lately. Up to u guys... - Benh (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• True, but if you renominate it, Poco has the right to withdraw that nomination too if he wants to. Just let it go, please. Following the rules is not a "waste of time" and there is no deadline on this project. --Cart (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Info I've unstriked Benh's takeover of Poco's withdrawal of this nom since it's against the current rules of FPC. If you wish to change these rules, please start a discussion about this on the FPC talk page. For now, I think it's a good idea to let this now toxic nomination go to archive until all combatants have calmed down a bit. Feel free to try a new nom in a month or so with clearer minds. --Cart (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)