Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg

File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 17:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
•  Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support better than the two existing FPs of this species. Charles (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - There are 3 existing FPs of this species, and I think this photo of a mating pair is the best photo of the species, if we ignore the distracting flowers that were too close to be in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment I feel like this should be a "delist and replace" nomination. We can't have too many FPs that are so similar, and I feel like this one (by the same author) for instance should be measured against this current nom. They can't both be FP in my view - they're too similar.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Those two are very different to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is an argument to delist, but take care: there are many variations of this species. This image, for instance, shows a specimen with no spots on the rear wing underside. Charles (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think we should have too many FPs of similar objects such as species variants. I mean, where do we draw the line on similar FPs of a good panorama view? Just take a few steps to the left and so the position is different? Is it enough of a difference for the same butterfly to sit on different flowers, or be in a different light? The lines may be blurred but for me, this is too close. I am going to  Oppose this vote as we already have a good existing FP (several, in fact). I might support a nomination to replace that one, but we should not ignore the existence of current FPs and simply promote new ones on top of the existing ones. --Peulle (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment First, the both pictures of me have complete different compositions. Second, they are not the same butterflies and look very different. Third, this here is a male and the other one is a female. How often are supported very similar compositions of one species from the same photographer especially when they have a different sex (or genter)? Strange views and discussion here about my pictures. --Hockei (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Maybe you could eliminate the cropped flower at the bottom right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Good idea, I missed that. Charles (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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