This is a really nice picture (self nom). It was taken in the French Pyrenees (near
Lescun). On the thumbnail it looks as if they blur into the background, but because its sharp they don't on the full size version. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't appear in any article, so I put it here in the hope that someone might recognise the species. Or it might go in
symmetry I suppose... [update: its now on
Coprophagia :-) and
symmetry in nature: thanks!
William M. Connolley19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the picture does not appear in any article. Should be nominated for featured pic on WM Commons, would have my full support there. -
Lanoitarus18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Note that my objection is only because of the article issue, I would support the image fully if it was in an appropriate article. -
Lanoitarus18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I am reiterating my opposition now that this has moved to the voting stage. Although it now appears in articles, in my personal opinion, it is not a ideal representation of either
Coprophagia or
Symmetry in nature (the symmetry because i dont feel TWO butterflies illustrate a naturally occuring symmetry, it is more coincidence. As before if this was part of a artcile which is illustrated well (such as its own species, for example), i would support the image, and i would have my full support on wikimedia commons as a free-standing image. -
Lanoitarus04:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Absolutely astonishing, I can't take my eyes off it. Support, if an appropriate article can be found, and to the cat with the two days commenting period. -
Haukur Þorgeirsson18:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Nice composition. Support. The JPEG artifacts, especially around the antennae, in the large version are unfortunate. You didn't happen to keep the original file/photo did you? Could you export it at a much higher quality (~500-1000 KB)? —
David Remahl18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
As I said above, I don't actually think this picture illustrates symmetry in nature. The symmetry here is accidental (two seperate butterflies). Symmetry in nature would be better illustrated by a view of both of one butterfly's wings. -
Lanoitarus20:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)reply
There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about that rule. I've updated the procedure again to reflect that. I understand your intentions are honorable (encourage consensus-building about nominations) but that doesn't mean you can set unilateral policy for a whole page. —
David Remahl11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. It's nice, but I don't know about how well a lump of faeces will go on the Main Page. And I don't think it's symmetry in nature.
Enochlau02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply
This is a really nice picture (self nom). It was taken in the French Pyrenees (near
Lescun). On the thumbnail it looks as if they blur into the background, but because its sharp they don't on the full size version. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't appear in any article, so I put it here in the hope that someone might recognise the species. Or it might go in
symmetry I suppose... [update: its now on
Coprophagia :-) and
symmetry in nature: thanks!
William M. Connolley19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the picture does not appear in any article. Should be nominated for featured pic on WM Commons, would have my full support there. -
Lanoitarus18:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Note that my objection is only because of the article issue, I would support the image fully if it was in an appropriate article. -
Lanoitarus18:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I am reiterating my opposition now that this has moved to the voting stage. Although it now appears in articles, in my personal opinion, it is not a ideal representation of either
Coprophagia or
Symmetry in nature (the symmetry because i dont feel TWO butterflies illustrate a naturally occuring symmetry, it is more coincidence. As before if this was part of a artcile which is illustrated well (such as its own species, for example), i would support the image, and i would have my full support on wikimedia commons as a free-standing image. -
Lanoitarus04:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Absolutely astonishing, I can't take my eyes off it. Support, if an appropriate article can be found, and to the cat with the two days commenting period. -
Haukur Þorgeirsson18:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Nice composition. Support. The JPEG artifacts, especially around the antennae, in the large version are unfortunate. You didn't happen to keep the original file/photo did you? Could you export it at a much higher quality (~500-1000 KB)? —
David Remahl18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)reply
As I said above, I don't actually think this picture illustrates symmetry in nature. The symmetry here is accidental (two seperate butterflies). Symmetry in nature would be better illustrated by a view of both of one butterfly's wings. -
Lanoitarus20:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)reply
There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about that rule. I've updated the procedure again to reflect that. I understand your intentions are honorable (encourage consensus-building about nominations) but that doesn't mean you can set unilateral policy for a whole page. —
David Remahl11:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. It's nice, but I don't know about how well a lump of faeces will go on the Main Page. And I don't think it's symmetry in nature.
Enochlau02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)reply