Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bee hummingbird

Bee hummingbird
Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017  at 12:14:12 (UTC)
 * Reason:The smallest bird in the world. FP on Commons.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bee hummingbird; Smallest species
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator: Charlesjsharp


 * Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Very nice, but the branch gets in the way of the bird, and as such the EV is a bit lacking. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree at all. To show the feet/chest of any bird with good bokeh you 100% have to have a branch in the way. The alternative view, of the back, is of equivalent EV. Not better, not worse. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on your level relative to the bird. See Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm not bothered by the branch per se. He has to sit on something, although a different angle might have shown more subject. The detail is good, but I wonder about the EV of an immature individual. Sca (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Images of immatures have been promoted in the past without being identified as such e.g. File:Dusky lory (Pseudeos fuscata), Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg. The differences are probably only important to specialists. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Many people would not know this is an immature. As this is the best picture of the smallest bird in the world, I think there is little doubt it has EV. Of course the photo was not taken by a favoured photographer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "The photo was not taken by a favoured photographer." And what is that supposed to mean? Compare this photograph to the existing FPs of birds in Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. How many have the feet obscured by the branch? Some have tails partially obscured (including two of the FPs I took). None that I've seen have the feet almost completely obscured. The angle of the branch is also a lot more drastic than what we have previously featured.
 * I'm not saying it is a bad photograph. It deserves its spot on Commons' FP list. I'm just saying that the EV is hurt by the branch being in the way of the bird. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment "The photo was not taken by a favoured photographer." related to the Picture of the Day page which states "the picture of the day is generally scheduled by one editor (currently Crisco 1492)" As far as I know, I've never had one of my FPs selected as a POTD,, though I did ask you what the process is. As to your comment about the branch, you refer to your two FPs: Dusky lory (Pseudeos fuscata), Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta, 2015-03-15 03.jpg Black lory (Chalcopsitta atra), Gembira Loka Zoo, Yogyakarta 2015-03-15 03.jpg. These seem very similar compositions to mine and you are comparing pictures of large birds in a zoo with a picture of a tiny bird in the wild. You suggested I look at existing FPs and so I have. You have selected over 40 FPs by the talented, and obviously favoured, photographer JJHarrison to be POTD over the last two years. Many of the these images have the bird in water, with no feet visible. For you to say that the "feet almost completely obscured" in my photo is a strange thing to say when the chest feathers of this hummingbird do obscure much of the feet. And, as I'm sure you know, hummingbirds can only cling onto things, they cannot just stand on their feet on a flat surface like most birds. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You think POTD is a game of favorites, and are accusing me of bias because of it? It roughly follows a first in, first out system (roughly as there is some wiggle room; I wouldn't run ten paintings in a row, for example). Your involvement with the English Wikipedia's FPC process started, to the best of my recollection, in mid-to-late 2015. Right now I'm scheduling from Featured pictures thumbs/48, which includes images promoted in late 2014/early 2015. We haven't reached your nominations yet. Hell, even my own early FPs just started coming out in June (photos taken in June 2014). There is no bias against any particular editor in the scheduling, and given my previous support for your photographs at both Commons and En-Wiki, I'm surprised you leaped to that conclusion.
 * As I said, some have parts of the tails covered. That includes the two of the three FP bird photographs I've taken (the other was a portrait), as well as images by other photographers such as File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg and File:Leucippus fallax.jpg. The difference is in the size of the branch relative to the bird, as well as its angle.
 * Yes, the bird is tiny. I get that. The problem is simply that the branch is distracting, a fact that is exacerbated by the angle from which the photograph was taken. I don't get why you're taking such offense to this oppose, considering two editors at the Commons nomination made the same point. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my rant. It was late at night. I had not realised we were so far behind and I had just seen your POTD dancing images selected for November and December 2016. Why not filter a few more out so that we can catch up? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. The queue is generally a year and a half to two years on en-Wiki. It's an effect of the FIFO system we've been using since POTD was first started. But if you have anything you'd really like to see on the main page, just let me know, or pick a date for yourself. You can write the blurb, or I can get it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Per Chris Woodrich – Jobas (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - intervening twig is not ideal but I will say that it almost adds a sort of three-dimensional appeal that many telephoto images lack. I respectfully disagree that it hinders the illustrative and educational value of the image, as no significant features of the bird are obscured. Sharpness and colors are very good. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't think that the branch is that much of a problem; the image is good quality and the bird is still clearly visible. I also think that the picture has good encyclopaedic value because it is by far the best picture we have of the species. N Oneemuss (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)