Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harpago chiragra 01.JPG

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

File:Harpago chiragra 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 17:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Chiragra Spider Conch; Length 19 cm; Originating from Samar, Eastern Visayas, Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  •  Comment Sorry, this are the natural colours of this specimen. For colour variation in Strombidae see e.g. [1],[2], especially this species [3] and on the other hand very pale ones like [4]. It can vary from very intensive colours to very pale. --Llez (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Six are not necessary. In the lower row, you have the back and the front view. The lateral view is identical with the lateral view in the upper row, only inclined on 90 degrees. Why do you insist on two identical pictures, only differentiating in the angle of presentation? BTW, if it is necessary to show more views, I do so, see [5]. --Llez (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I believe (naive thinking maybe) that six is the minimum to have a comprehensive view of the subject, which I think is the goal of such images. Thank you for the answer... but I still oppose :) (because of the other points I raised, but that won't change anything). - Benh (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your answer to Ben's question. Where is the image from the exact opposite side of the shell compared to the central image in the top row? That is not equivalent to any of the ones you've presented. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because you're understating that the missing view can be deduced from that central lateral view. Which is wrong because the shell doesn't show any symetry to me (unless I've really missed something...). - Benh (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This five views show all characters, which are necessary for identifying the species: The form, colour and structure of the shell, the decline of the aperture, the (possible) different structure and colour of the ventral side, the aperture itself, the apex anf the siphonal region. The sixth view you want to see, gives no further information. That’s the reason why. But please let me know, why you insist on six views only in my pictures?
    There are several featured pictures of shells, which show only one or two views ([6], [7] ,[8], [9], [10], and so on). Can you please explain me, why you didn't oppose in this cases? I was the first, who showed more, and you oppose. Are two better than five? And why only in shells? Are gastropods the only animals, which have several aspects? I've never seen opposing a FPC of a bird with the the argument, that one can not see the backside, the ventral side, the left and right side, the front and the anus at the same picture. Birds look somewhat different, too, regarded from a different view. I wonder, if these animals [11], which were nominated by you, look identical if seen from backside. But not only animals. What about churches [12], lakes, mountains? Do you want always have six views, before become featured? Then we will have really little candidates in future. --Llez (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at all examples, but I didn't support either I think. I'm not always wandering on FPC, some time, I'm away for a while. I may have opposed. I'm OK to feature 1, 2, 3 shells... but so many of them, I become bored. Then they must feature something a bit special. And you're kidding right ?? Animal aren't as simple to shoot as still shells... the picture is also much more beautiful IMO. Same applies to landscapes, which aren't as simple to take as one might think, and can't always be repeated. I mainly vote based on photographic skills. If you intend to be encyclopedical, do it right (or see en:FPC, de:FPC etc.). If you can't justify the missing view, I oppose. I still think u need at least 6 on most objects. And anyhow I have others reason, as already given. If you shoot still objects, you should at least do it right (better then using direct flash light, choosing better aperture... I don't think f/25 is suitable choice, but if you think the contrary, I'm open to discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case by your side since you always skip the questions). - Benh (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm meaning that if the encyclopedical value prevails here, then it seems to me that the FPC of Wikipedias (in most langs but french) should be more suitable place. - Benh (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the words, but I don't understand the assertion above . In my opinion (I read the guidelines like others...), this is wrong, or a misinterpretation, and I strongly disagree (as one can see). Commons is not a place for "only" photographical beauty contests (many other sites for that). But here is not the place for such a discussion. The question is (again): what is feature-able ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not everyone read the guidelines... as already seen on the nomination of your image below. And if you have already read the complete guideline, then I'll just recall you that high technical merit is important component of an FP, as well as wow factor. This picture has none of them. And sorry to say, but neither does yours. It's well done, but anyone could do the same. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anyone could do the same", but I feel really alone sometimes with my "inside" pictures... Anyway, I give up... Some reviewers seems suffering very hard here and it is a pity. I don't understand why they stay if it is so painful to stand those poor pictures... Something funny : if they oppose, their vote is immediately followed by two or three support votes... I don't really know why and it is unfair: they are so sure to hold the Truth...--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I get Benh's point, but not quite. I've wondered about the choice of 5 and whether a simple back and front shot combo wouldn't accomplish the same basic educational effect, but whatever. That's Llez's signature style (Benh, did you bother going to Llez's user page? Though Llez has done 6, 4, even 8 angle before). I could see a 6th angle for the side the opposes the furthermost point of the "lip," whatever the proper scientific term is, but the 5 angles I think usually works because Llez tends to arraign them nicely, but to each his own.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Harpago_chiragra_01.JPG&oldid=49695062"