Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Inachis io top MichaD.jpg

Image:Inachis io top MichaD.jpg, featured

EXAMPLE: Existing FP of the same species

•  Info created by MichaD | Michael Apel - uploaded by MichaD | Michael Apel - nominated by ~~ --MichaD | Michael Apel 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support While there are already two featured pictures of this ever popular species this one has nearly all of the wings in focus --MichaD | Michael Apel 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Info For comparison, the other FPs of this species are here and here. -- Ram-Man 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Support This image is clearly better than the first FP (which I've proposed for delisting), but I don't know about the second. This one has more detail, but the other one has a better composition. The crop doesn't bother me, because that's the point of this image: high detail. I also prefer the contrast that this background provides. Both images serve a different purpose, but which should be the FP? I'm leaning towards this one, but I don't think the other one would be delisted (despite the rules), so I can't support right now unless this is a proposed vote to replace the other one. I think this nomination should be restated to vote for or against the two versions. -- Ram-Man 13:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, I wouldn't want to replace the other one. But as you already stated both images serve a different purpose. So I still think there can be two images of the same species, one more encyclopedic and the other more artistic. --MichaD | Michael Apel 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support there is no way you can't support this one !! Lycaon 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing! -- MJJR 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I don't like the background, but the butterfly is very good. I don't agree with the rule, that there shall be only one FP of the same species. --wau > 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's not the rule, the rule is that there can't be two images that are too similar. Are these images similar? Clearly. Too similar? I think so, but it's so hard to decide which is better that maybe there is a case to be made that each image serves a different purpose. This image is probably a better image of this particular type of butterfly, because it's clearer. The other is probably a better generic picture of a butterfly, because it's prettier. If so, the future FP that 'knocks out' the right hand one might even be a completely different type of butterfly with an even more beautiful background. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • there is no such rule that there can't be two images that are too similiar -- Gorgo 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
      • There's supposed to be: "Normally there should never be two Featured Pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if an improved version is promoted the original version should be delisted." Perhaps we should reword it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If they are both top quality, I don't see why not two (or even more) pictures of the same subject can't be featured, provided that they are not to similar (e.g. different background, different POV, different time of day). We have for instance already four FP's of the Golden gate bridge, each of them with its own value. Lycaon 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I think you have, as we say, hit the nail on the head. There can be two or more images that are similar, so long as each has its own value.  Support. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support sehr schön, die natürlichere Farbe als das andere Bild --Böhringer 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Keta 08:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Christof01 17:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 08:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)