Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg 02

Close up of Australian Painted Lady Feeding #2

 * Reason:Previous nomination here failed to gain consensus due to votes of "poor enc" in the various articles. Given the test of time, and indeed the various references I cited in my rebuttal, has proven these claims incorrect I'd like to resubmit this nom as I think it's a really interesting and valuable image.
 * Articles this image appears in: Australian painted lady, Insect mouthparts, Nectar, Nectarivore and Pollinator
 * Creator:Fir0002


 * Support as nominator --Fir0002 05:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous Nomination --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support again. Good quality and informative Muhammad (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I find it excellent, as I did when I saw the picture before. &mdash; Ceran ( sing / see ) (2102 uıןɐd) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, hang on You are renominating this for no reason other than you didn't like the outcome of the first nom? Has anything else changed? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What has changed is that it is now very clear that the image has a valid home in the articles, and therefore opposes based on "poor enc" are groundless. I raised the closing of the nom on MER-C talkpage and he said that in the interests of transparency a renom would be most appropriate - a perfectly reasonable suggestion IMO. --Fir0002 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close - Nothing has changed from the previous nomination. The image is still irrelevant in some articles (Insect mouthparts and Australian painted lady) and misleading in others (Pollinator and Nectar). Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant to any of those articles. One month in the articles clearly demonstrates that the community feels these images belong. One of the primary features of the image is the butterfly's proboscis which is obviously at home in the relevant section of Insect mouthparts. To claim that it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts [because it] shows only the proboscis is laughably ridiculous since it would be highly unusual for an insect to have a Labrum,  Mandible,  Maxilla,  Labium,  Hypopharynx,  Stylet,  Labellum, and Proboscis simultaneously! It provides a detailed closeup of the Australian Painted lady and therefore is a valuable addition to scant article which benefits from the "thousand words" the image offers to readers. It belongs in Pollinator as the following links demonstrate: Pollinator, Pollination syndrome,    . It belongs in Nectar since butterflies are mentioned in it's opening paragraph as a notable feeder of nectar (see also fact 5. And finally this shot, capturing a nectarivore action, makes a great illustration for the nectarivore article! Seems highly peculiar, if not completely illogical, to claim this image fails the "EV test" given it's relatively extensive use in the wikipedia! --Fir0002 09:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fir. de Bivort 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support de Bivort 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fir, you have a misunderstanding here. Being retained in articles does not demonstrate exceptional EV. You added this image to every single article where it isn't in a gallery (and hence ineligible). Thank you for your attention. Oppose as per arguments in previous nom. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PLW, you have a misunderstanding here. The fact it has remained in the article implicitly demonstrates it's acceptance by article editors. If it was incorrectly used it would have been removed. --Fir0002 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to demonstrate exceptional encyclopaedic value, and you have not done that. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize you just made up that criteria: 5. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. - WP:WIAFP?. There is no requirement for "exceptional encyclopaedic value", and otherwise many of the current and past noms, including IMO this one, would fail on this point. As Calliopejen1 mentions below, its inclusion in nectarvore, alone satisfies the FPC criteria!. Therefore I can see no valid ground to oppose based on "lack of EV" --Fir0002 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Criterion 3 It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. Criterion 5 Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a misunderstanding of criterion 3. The requirement for an image to be compelling is not a requirement for "exceptional" EV. This is best illustrated with some examples: compelling, not compellling; compelling, not compelling; compelling, not compelling. Note in all these examples the encyclopaedic value is equal between the compelling and non compelling examples. And yes the EV is given precedence over artistic, or compelling value, which is only an additional reason why this image fulfils the criterion since even if you don't find it compelling it is unquestionably encyclopaedic in several articles. You have still to provide a logical and reasonable explanation why this image does not have the required EV - particularly as an illustration of a proboscis in the Insect mouthparts article. That said it seems you've invested too much argument in this debate and you'll continue calling black white than regardless of reason... For this reason, at the risk of being accused of vote canvassing, I propose as an objective test to ask the people actually involved in these articles whether or not they think this image has EV --Fir0002 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cited the criteria, and your image does not meet them. It is telling that you've chosen to entirely ignore the wording of criterion 5 in your attempt to represent my contribution. The fact that (after finally admitting that the presence of a proboscis may be the only component of this image with any encyclopedic value) you've now announced that you're going to go on a canvassing spree substantiates what several editors here have said - that you don't like the rules when they don't go your way. My personal feeling is that you're on a slippery slope to a community patience motion. What I find most worrying in all this is that you're choosing to ignore well-meaning suggestions such as those by Matt Deres and Noodle snacks that your other image covers the same ground already. Why is this not a satisfactory outcome for you? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even going to bother responding to such tabloid-level misrepresentation of the facts but was curious as to what you meant by "community patience motion" - I've never heard of one...? --Fir0002 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Fir. There is clear EV here. Is it in dispute that these butterflies are pollinators that eat nectar? A simple google search shows that butterflies are in fact pollinators (though not as important as other species) and that painted ladies specifically are nectarivores (see here). I would say that EV is satisfied by its use in nectarivore alone, which is where it's most relevant. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar and previous nomination. Moreover, this is already featured and illustrates the subject much better. That one is definitely better for Australian Painted Lady, and probably better for Nectarivore and Pollinator, although I don't think either should be in Pollinator. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note there is nothing in the FPC criteria which prohibits multiple FP's of similar subject matter (although I would like to stress this image has a distinct advantage over the previous FP thanks to the extra close up detail). Examples of similar FP's: 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2. Hence I can't understand your oppose... Also given that this was your first contribution to WP:FPC, can I just ask (out of curiosity) how it is that you came across this nomination in particular? --Fir0002 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The contributor has made perfectly valid points, is an established editor, and has even made contributions to one other FPC discussion, so I don't see the need for your question. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 150 edits is barely an "established" editor, and it struck me as unusual for an editor to delve straight into a (relatively) controversial nom rather than dipping his/her toe into a straightforward nom first. --Fir0002 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First contribution 19 March 2006. Err... yes, I think that counts as established. Controversial? Glad you admit it, people have been calling for a speedy close. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that the already-featured picture would be better for those articles, which, I think, diminishes the EV of this picture. To answer your question: I've been following WP:FPC for a month or two to get a feel for it. This was the first time I felt compelled to chime in with my opinion. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way do you feel the existing FP better illustrates those articles? This image clearly has a much clearer focus on the butterfly feeding from the flower. That it is an Australian Painted Lady is secondary to this image. Whereas the existing FP is all about illustrating the Australian Painted Lady species. Furthermore as I pointed out the existence or non existence of similar subject FP's does not have any relevance to the current nom as long as this image is of comparable quality and value. Fair enough about your introduction to FPC, however it might have been a good idea, as I mentioned above to PLW, to start off with a few less controversial noms to establish a bit of experience in the process. --Fir0002 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that a picture's EV is diminished when another picture illustrates a subject better. I understand that we can have more than one FP on a subject, but I think the current one has a lot more EV than this one. I find the clear focus you mention more distracting than anything. The current FP gives me a better idea of what a Nectarivore is because I can see the entire butterfly, including its proboscis, and a significant portion of what it's feeding on. As for the Pollinator article: since the Australian painted lady isn't a terribly important pollinator, it doesn't have great value to that article. I also don't think this picture is very effective at illustrating Nectar. Finally, I jumped in here precisely because this is a controversial nomination; nobody needs my opinion when it's all support or all oppose. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll just have to disagree on Nectarivore and Pollinator, however surely an image with a clear focus on a nectarivore feeding on nectar serves a very useful purpose in Nectar? Although the current FP also shows the butterfly feeding, this image, particularly at thumbnail size, is far more effective and specific. And surely it is beyond contention that this image has better EV than the existing FP for illustrating Insect mouthparts thanks to the proboscis being far clearer and more detailed. Finally, yes you might think that your vote is immaterial in clear cut cases, but establishing a history on FPC is a good idea as otherwise you come across as a bit of a "blown in" - which in a controversial nom can be somewhat frustrating to the nominator... --Fir0002 06:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the similarity with another of your previous pictures reminds me of this and this Noodle snacks (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per all of the reason's Alv. listed on the first nomination + more. It just looks spammed across all these articles, and it is not the best picture we have to illustrate many of them. Simply being put in lots of articles does not EV make. Plus, I think the picture's composition is cluttered and un-aesthetic. It isn't immediately clear what's going on at the size used in articles. We've already got other featured pictures that are better, so sorry, but no. pschemp | talk 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err is your monitor calibrated? Because if you can't tell this is a butterfly feeding on a flower at thumbnail size something is not quite right at your end... --Fir0002 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fir, the unfortunate fact is that the one leg is stuck on the flower too, making it difficult to be sure what is the mouthpart at first glance. A truly spectacular picture of feeding would leave no doubt at first glance which is the mouthpart. Yours does leave doubt as two long appendages, both seemingly originating from nearly the same area are touching the vicinity. You have to enlarge it to really tell the difference and even then it's not clear. I asked several uninvolved people to look at the picture and they agreed that it was hard to tell which was the proboscis. The composition is still un-aesthetic, cluttered and confusing and you know quite well that this has nothing to do with calibrating monitors. Are you going to insist that the other leg is not near the flower now and insult my monitor again? This picture is no more encyclopedic now than before. pschemp | talk 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Simmer down pschemp - no I'm not going to say that leg isn't there because it is. But I will tell you that it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the proboscis is going to be the one which originates at the base of the head and terminates in the centre of the flower! Having just asked several uninvolved people myself I can assure you that it is difficult to confuse its leg with its proboscis - particularly given the clear colour distinction! --Fir0002 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Quoted from a recent edit above, by Fir0002: ... at the risk of being accused of vote canvassing, I propose as an objective test to ask the people actually involved in these articles whether or not they think this image has EV. If I understand well, this is a proposal for replacing the present FPC consensus by the opinion of a selected group of "experts". Really, the insistance is becoming ridiculous and I can't understand why this nomination is still open. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its still open due to EV... (Entertainment Value) :D Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you haven't quite understood it. FPC is obviously not a vote tally. Votes need to have valid arguments for them to have value in determining the consensus. For example if I went and opposed Image:New River Gorge Bridge.jpg this image because it was too small and unsharp the vote would hold little value as it's patently incorrect. While FPC regulars can be expected to be familiar with technical aspects of photography this may not be true of EV. Sure there are hundreds of obvious cases, but where the debate centres on an images EV, I can see no problem in supplementing the FPC process with the input of experts. I mean if the above !votes claiming EV is lacking are correct than what have you to hide? Why all the fuss if the experts will agree with you? --Fir0002 21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to insist that the editors of the articles have input is a pretty clear attempt to circumvent the procedures of FPC when they don't go your way. I notice you've never proposed such a thing, nor supported it for anyone else's picture. You are basically saying that the people on FPC can't be trusted to know what they are talking about and that's quite disgraceful on your part. pschemp | talk 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my original statement. I'm not proposing a new procedure, I'm not "insisting editors of the article have input" I'm simply suggesting that it would be constructive to resolve this debate to seek further input from editors experienced in the fields in question. How could I have supported such a move in other noms since I haven't been involved in a nom where the nominator has requested this?! And again - why are you getting so worked up if you are confident in your assessment? Finally I'd request you leave the personal attacks out of this discussion --Fir0002 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But this debate is already resolved, exactly the same way as all other nominations are settled in FPC. Why should we do otherwise and why are we opening an exception by allowing the discussion to proceed? It really looks like we are waiting for the experts to come!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Personally, I find its use in Insect mouthparts acceptable.  Spencer T♦C 02:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. While not particularly great EV for the butterfly itself, in insect mouthparts and pollinator it has much better EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support There seems to be some debate about this haha. I think there is enough EV in at least insect mouthparts to pass it, it is similar to another portrait shot though. Frankly though it seems like if someone else took this photograph then it would probably pass without issues and featured picture candidacy shouldn't be about who took the shot. The energy above would be better spent taking photographs or determining which articles the image is most suited to. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat, for completeness, my comment from the last nomination: The reason it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts is that it shows only the proboscis, and even so, only partially (that is, one out of five mouthparts that insects have). (emphasis added) Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my respose to this: To claim that it doesn't have EV in insect mouthparts [because it] shows only the proboscis is laughably ridiculous since it would be highly unusual for an insect to have a Labrum,  Mandible,  Maxilla,  Labium,  Hypopharynx,  Stylet,  Labellum, and Proboscis simultaneously! --Fir0002 22:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia can provide some education on this matter: Image:Evolution insect mouthparts.png. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been following the thread for quite some time and have made up my own mind thank you. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I strongly disagree with the last arguments. If it were another creator then the nomination would have been closed much sooner! Furthermore, suggesting that we should spend our energy looking for a suitable article for the photo is a gross distortion of point 5 of the guidelines. Finally I must protest against the artificial extension of the normal evaluation period which I regard as an unacceptable arbitrariness. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the obvious result here is. MER-C 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is 8-4 in favour inclusive of the nominator's support. You'd have to be a brave man to close it otherwise though. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the 19th, when it should have been closed, it was a clear 5s - 3o which would lead to not promoted. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)