File talk:Tracks of Ursus americanus, the American black bear in Yellowstone.jpg

•  Comment I suggest you nominate for Value Picture. Technical quality is the big thing here. --S23678 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• IMO you overuse FPX. Maybe this image is not good enough for FP (not because of the quality, but because of the subject).The quality of the image is very good and "the main subject" is as sharp as it was in the real life.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• General quality: there's a dark area on the top right area of the picture, the main subject is not in focus (the center of the pit is), background/balance/proportion (a huge portion of the image is a featureless rocky/muddy ground)... All my previous FPX templates have been indirectly supported by all other users (no longer true as of 14h25...! --S23678 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) except there (where it still got removed because of another FPX). From the technical points I mentionned above, it is clear for me that your image has no chances of success, therefore I putted a FPX tag that can be removed by anyone supporting your picture. There's no such thing as overuse when there is good reasons to think an image is very likely to fail FPC process. There would be an overuse if I applied the FPX tag everytime I did not supported a picture, which is not the case. --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I agree that that my image has little to no chances of success, but I do not see anything bad, if it were a canditate for 5 days and not for 2 days.I do not like FPX not only for my images, but for other images too.BTW the tracks and everything else is in focus with F10 the image was taken. There just a different structure of the soil, where the tracks are compare to the middle of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Question Why do you nominate an image when you "agree that that my(your) image has little to no chances of success"? I understand that you think: "my image has potential, but I don't think other people will see the potential of my picture", not "I think that my image is bad" (simple thought, complicated sentence). However, if you limited your nominations to the images that you think other would like as much as you do, frustrating situations for you like this one would be less common. What do you think? From 10 weeks of travelling in South America, and thousand of pictures taken (a lot of bad ones), I've nominated 2 of them now for FPX, and I think I may have the potential for a maximum of 5 FP from all those pictures (since FP should be "the best of the best"). Right now, 6 of your images from Yellowstone NP are FPC, and a lot more have already gone through the voting process, which is a lot. I understand you are passionate about photography and you like to share your work, and I appreciate your contribution to commons, but I think it would be very easy to get a higher success rate at FPC if you were a little more selective in your nominations, and did not nominated images that, in your opinion, have little chances of succeding. --S23678 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• In case you did not notice Yellowstone is very huge, diverse, and beautiful environment. It has hot springs, geysers, waterfalls, wildlife and so on. The images I nominated represent all these different things. No matter how many Yellowstone images I am to nominate, the number will be far off the images of insects (many of which are the same), flowers (many of which are the same) and birds (many of which are the same), which are featured right now. And what about two almost the same night panoramas of Hong Kong? I am sorry you took bad images in South America. I am glad I took good images in Yellowstone.With your permission, may I please deicide myself what and how many images to nominate? Thanks, and I do not think I am interested in continuing this discussion.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)