Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg

File:Common kingfisher at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016 II.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2017 at 20:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info |c|u|n| by Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 21:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always! ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daphne Lantier 21:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cart-Talk 07:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]
Comment Not very much definition. The lens I guess is the limitation. Charles (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't understand the voting here compared to this current nomination which has comparable sharpness and size of birds in pixels. Yet the other photo is a great picture and this one is not. The tree trunk is distracting and diagonal intersects the birds head. We already have a better FP: File:Kingfisher eating a tadpole.jpg with no distracting background at all. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. This cannot compare with existing FP. Charles (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really sorry but I agree completely with Colin. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin Poc o² 22:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. It's a pity because the quality is good and the right side of the image is optimal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is the part of FP I'm still unsure of; when images are similar. Should this be a "delist/replace" discussion? We have had several images of the same species of bird promoted before - just how similar do they have to be before they overlap?--Peulle (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's been an ongoing debate. People will never agree. In this case, I think they are dissimilar enough for both to be listed. PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess we'll have to settle it democratically, then. Thanks to Colin for pointing it out and then people can decide for themselves.--Peulle (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not this absolutely isn't a delist/replace issue. People can take pictures of Kingfishers all they like. But FP is about "the finest on Commons" and the other pic is an order of magnitude better, particularly wrt background / composition. -- Colin (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daphne Lantier 21:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]