Original - Illustration of three characteristic stages of a Opium Poppy flower (Papaver somniferum): bud (left), flower (centre) and fruit (right).Alternative - Illustration of a Opium Poppy flower (Papaver somniferum). In the background, the bud (bottom) and fruit (left)
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
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]
Why not nominate this as a set? Lumping it together into a single image does not make it more usefull, but rather less useful. --Dschwen14:12, 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. --Dschwen16:04, 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. --Dschwen16:20, 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. JujutacularT · C23:08, 24 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 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]
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]
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]
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. NauticaShades11:54, 14 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\talk20:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
