Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg

Opium Poppy

Multiple images in a single box. Demonstrates why it is unnecessary to combine the photos into a single file.

Set 2.

Reason: Highly encyclopaedic and good quality illustration of the plant
Articles in which this image appears: Opium Poppy
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Others
Creator: Alvesgaspar (talk)

Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Difficult to be more enc than this. I hope that it will not be declined by some irrelevant technical details like this one. I'm adding a possible alternative, but really prefer the original. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An image not being in focus is an irrelevant technical detail now? --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, when the flaw is minimal and does not affect the illustration purpose. Anyway the alternative didn't have such problem -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not nominate this as a set? Lumping it together into a single image does not make it more usefull, but rather less useful. --Dschwen 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It is more useful for illustration purposes if the images are kept together imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can always put them together using wiki markup, however you cannot re-layout them once they are lumped into one image. --Dschwen 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I can. They are all available as separate pictures. Just give me some time to refer to it in the image file. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, then please provide a vertically stacked series, a picture with the Flower on the bottom and the two other pictures on top, one with the flower on top and the two others on the bottom, one with the flower on the right and the two others vertically stacked on the left. Thanks. --Dschwen 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, what does that achieve? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The flexibility that separate images would have. ;-) --Dschwen 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        yes master, anything you say ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I made a mistake and nominated the wrong image. It is fixed now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a box showing the multiple images displayed together, as opposed to combining them into a single file. This demonstrates why a single file is unnecessary. Therefore, I support these images as a set. Jujutacular ^T · C 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer set 1, per Avenue. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support only as a set, not as combined image. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, preferably as a set, but combined is also good.--ragesoss (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jujutacular, with a preference for a crop of the alt as the centre image (set 2) - better DOF and somewhat softer lighting (can be argued both ways, but I prefer the softer version in this case). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support set, with preference to set two. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support set, with preference for set one. The characteristic crinkles in the outer parts of the petals are clearer here. --Avenue (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as set, not combined image. I agree that combining into one file makes it less useful, as a set of 3 images it's much more flexible. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support set Hive001 contact 16:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which set? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I perfer the one with this flower, sharper, in the sun.. the other is less sharp and overcast... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that set 2 has the sharper image. In the original set, the outer fringes of the petals are out of focus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer set 1. As I said above, I feel it represents the flower's nature more clearly, even if it is technically a bit out of focus in places. --Avenue (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support set 1. I'm with Avenue on this one. Set 2 may be slightly sharper, but that may just be because it's smaller. NauticaShad es 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you can't defeat them ... join them. I prefer set 2. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support set 2. The set 1 flower looks a bit shriveled IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Most people found more adequate to promote a set instead of a poster. Now, how do you insert a set into a taxbox? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Taxobox template needs an override parameter, here's an example of it working with a modified version of the template: [1] Alternatively, an image3 set of parameters could be added for a vertical arrangement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which Set? Looks like three people support set 1, and three people support set 2. Anyone else want to add their input? NauticaShad es 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get four vs. four, but yes, we do need additional opinions. FWIW, this is my list (apologies for abbreviated names):
- Juju 1
- Papa 2
- Mostly 2
- Avenue 1
- raeky 1
- Nautica 1
- Alves 2
- King 2

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave a note on the talk pages of Kaldari, Rageoss, and Hive001, who have already voted on the nom, so they can express their preference. NauticaShad es 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer set 2.--ragesoss (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Set 2. Looks better. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Set 2 Hive001 contact 11:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-8a.jpg, Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-13_crop.jpg, and Promoted File:Papaver April 2010-9.jpg —Maedin\^talk 20:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]