Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Buff-tailed coronets

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2023 at 17:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Aggressive territorial behaviour by the left hand bird
    Aggressive territorial behaviour by the left hand bird
  • The right hand bird possibly ignores the aggression; possibly doesn't
    The right hand bird possibly ignores the aggression; possibly doesn't
I agree. I think this is stretching the set concept a bit too far. It is funny and all, but really: "Two birds facing each other, one with open beak" and "Two birds looking in the same direction". Is that really a set option? You usually make your little animal stories as image series, wouldn't that be better here too? See 1 and 2. Btw, I think the photos per se look great, they deserve to be FPs in some way, just make it the right way.--Cart (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Set criteria do include: "A sequence of images showing the passage of time", but I agree these guidelines can be interpreted in different ways. I could obviously remove the comments, though when Colin's Raven POTY was nominated it was described as 'a fun portrait of two characters'. There is no doubt that the bird on the left was behaving territorially and so is educational. To show you what I mean, some 40 minutes later there was another display of aggression. I have just uploaded two other photos that show what happened: this one and this one, which I would have liked to include in the set but the left bird isn't sharp enough. Also, I cannot be sure the two birds are the same ones. This sort of nomination (like Colin's) will be loved by some and hated by others. I have uploaded a composite image which could be an ALT. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, humor is always appreciated and goes a long way to lighten the mood on this forum. I do certainly not question the validity of a funny FP, in fact: Bring them on! Thank you for making the composite image, unfortunately 'Alts' can't be made on set nominations (they already deal with multiple images). So if voters think the composite is the best way to go, a new nomination would have to be made. Sorry about the bureaucracy! 'Pinging' previous voters for their input on this: PantheraLeo1359531 😺, ArionStar, Moataz1997, Terragio67, Ikan Kekek, Yann. --Cart (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each frame of the composite image is the same size as the individual pictures, so I don't care whether they are considered as a set or as a composite image, but I also don't understand why the rules for considering a nomination would be different for a composite image than for a set; that doesn't make sense to me. Charlesjsharp, you mistakenly linked File:Buff-tailed coronets (Boissonneaua flavescens) Caldas 3.jpg twice instead of linking two photos that show what happened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are specific rules for sets. These rules do not apply if these two images are presented as a composite image in a normal nomination. To be honest, I'm simply trying to get the "legalese" right so this can sail through a nom, without irking some users who lean towards the nom not being a valid set. --Cart (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the logic to me is that if something is misleading as a set, it's exactly as misleading as a composite of two images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with the feedback above. It is a good idea and funny but not aligned with the criteria for sets. Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would support each of them as FP. --Aristeas (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Aristeas, and I see the point of those who have questioned the educational value of the captions and thus the validity of the set. While I appreciate the humour, perhaps the captions can be changed to something more descriptive? But since the captions at the actual images are already descriptive, I don't see a reason not to support. -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Please find more descriptive captions. Not comic / anthropomorphic but rather ornithological.
If meaningful, the behaviors should be correctly interpreted by book writers, Wikipedia editors, media journalists, curious readers, etc.
Clue that the wording of this set is wacky, none of these captions have been used at this stage on Wikipedia (nor in the description of the composite image newly uploaded).
Some nominations work as composites but not as sets.
The picture at the left is in my opinion the most interesting of both, if one should be chosen.
It's nice to have fun, but in the case that these guesses written in the description of the set are not accurate, then "Tirade❓ Response ❓" sounds more counter-productive than useful for our project. Without being an expert, I don't think the bird's behavior is expressing a "long violent angry speech, protracted, intemperate, vituperative, harshly censorious language" (a "tirade"). And the bird at the right seems just to be ignoring the other, like an "absence of response" on the contrary (if that's a question of territory). Some readers may interpret this behavior as a consent (turning the head means "ok, accepted", like Indians's body language is to shake the head horizontally to say "yes") -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Now the second caption is too uncertain, thus insignificant.  Question Would it not also be possible for the bird on the left to defend its territory against the one on the right that came to monopolize it? In which case it would not be an aggressor but rather a defender or a complainant? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I have to choose an image, the first is the one I prefer, in any case, I appreciated Charles' humor in the particular interpretation of the two images, and for this reason, I make an exception on his comments, because these and only these are divisive in the interpretation of the established rules. For the moment I leave my vote to support. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.241.169 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I'm signing my comment, thank you...
 Support Terragio67 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, Terragio67, don't vote twice. I have crossed out your redundant {{S}}. The votes are counted by a bot, and this FPCbot won't notice the duplicate. By the way, the problem is not your vote, but the comment left by an IP using your signature. Imagine someone else votes for you, like here, would you appreciate? That's why you should log in and offer a signature matching your personal account. Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    please forgive my double vote and the awkward attitude, due to the fact that I did not understand the situation well... KR Terragio67 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Buff-tailed_coronets&oldid=813224625"