Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Northern masked weaver (2)

Northern masked weaver female (2)
Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2021  at 15:12:08 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality large image. FP on Commons. Reworked from RAW since previous nomination.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Northern masked weaver
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
 * Creator:Charlesjsharp


 * Support as nominator – Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support.-- Vulp  ❯❯❯  here!  13:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support --Andrei (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support --Janke | Talk 06:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Lemonreader (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support × Elvorix talk 07:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I struck the above vote, editor has less than 100 edits. See instructions on top of this page. Bammesk (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Comment – Fine feathery pic., but target article is a tiny 43-word sub-stub drastically unsuitable for main page promotion, thus not eligible for POTD (particularly since comp. is vertical). – Sca (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is FPC, not POTD. Your opinion in this discussion had no support. This image is not being proposed as suitable for POTD. Suitability for POTD has not been agreed as an FP criteria, so please do not invent criteria. And to suggest that an image cannot be POTD as it is 'vertical' is a nonsense statement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * My "opinion" was a factual explanation about the structure of Wikipedia – which, be it noted, I did not devise: All nominations here at Featured Picture Candidates, if approved, are perforce potential choices for the POTD. Those who don't like it can lump it. (I decline to comment on your "nonsense" jibe.) – Sca (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: This nom. could be promoted if the 'article' were substantially expanded. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are wrong. Read POTD guidelines. It says FPs don't have to become POTD, for instance when article quality is low. This is FPC, not POTD, so read the FP criteria too and the instructions on top of FPC page. In the past you said you disagree with the FP criteria, diff nom, and that you don't go by it diff nom. If you disagree with the FP process, start a RFC on the project's talk page. Adding invalid oppose rationales and comments to FP nominations is Disruptive. Bammesk (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not responsible for every glitch in Wiki instructions. Standards for Main Page play are what they are. Please don't ping me again with such prolix protests, whoever you are. Adieu. – Sca (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no glitch. You disagree with the FP process. FPC is not POTD. Bammesk (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This disagreement is not helping the FP project. Sca's opinion is quite reasonable, but surely we cannot allow oppose votes on criteria which are not part of the current guidelines. Could an admin (if any watch this page) help us out please. In the meantime I have initiated a vote. Please participate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I'm probably not qualified. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my position or understanding of Wikipedia one bit, but I'm sick & tired of all this overwrought kerfuffle, so I changed my evil opsn to a 'comment.' Is everybody happy now? – Sca (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)