Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Rhinoceros in South Africa adjusted.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Rhinoceros in South Africa adjusted.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2023 at 13:07:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • 20 upper, since you are still very new to FPC and Commons, you don't know most of the unwritten rules and practices here. This is not a bunch of lemmings following the leader. Delist nominations are fairly uncommon these days, and when reviewing them, users often tend to look at old FPs and decide if they were good for the time they were made and promoted in. If we went completely by the book and treated the FP section the way you want to, there are literally thousands of FPs to delist if we judge them by today's standards, and we would have very little else to dedicate our time here at FPC to than reviewing old FPs to see if they should be delisted. The delist option was created when we had a few hundred FPs; now there are over 17,000 and it's a whole different ballgame. Delist and replace nomination are however done as we get new and better versions of old FPs.
And if you think there is some kind of herd psychology involved in using the "per Xxx", you are way wrong. You will never find a more individual lot with their own taste in pictures than FPC reviewers. This is a place where voters have no problem going up one against twenty, and say "You are wrong!" The "per" is just used as a shorthand when people tend to have the same opinion. After voting year in and year out on thousands of images, it becomes a bit hard to vary what you write about a photo.
I hope this answers you question about what you are viewing. But it's also good when newbies come in and question the way things are done. Perhaps you could start a discussion about this on the FPC talk page? This page was/is supposed to be only for voting, but it has become more of a discussion and workshop forum lately. Best, --Cart (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, w:en:WP:PERX is probably the most nonsensical policy I've ever come across and am glad we do not have this on Commons. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Being not a member of any herd, I tend to keep it for the reasons mentioned by Cart, although I admit that it certainly wouldn't pass nowadays. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It is amazing to see the technical progress and the increase of our technical standards here on Commons, but we should not turn this against the older photographs. In 2005, most Wiki photographers used simple cameras, lenses and scanners and followed a rather documentary approach. After looking at other Commons wildlife photos from the same time, I would say this one was quite good for 2005 and the FP star was OK. I understand the objections and honour 20 upper’s intentions. But the idea of perpetual delisting of older FPs is IMHO problematic: not long, and we would also have to delist many/most of today’s FPs just because the technical progress has moved on. We should not enforce that process, but concentrate on delisting only the worst FPs. Are the photographs of famous photographers from the past bad just because they lack colour, show film grain or are low-resolution? No, because their composition, their expression etc. are not diminished by the fact that today we could take a similar photo in colour and at much higher resolutions. In the same way we should also not look contemptuously on yesterday’s FPs just because they show signs of their age – we should judge each file on its own. --Aristeas (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I don't care if it was good enough in 2005. "Good for the time" works for historic photographs where the time of creation actually matters. Someone looking for a great photograph of some rhinos now would be very disappointed getting this as a recommendation. --El Grafo (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist For the composition even if we ignore the technical quality. Having one head in the shade does't work. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You see, 20 upper, that Cart’s point has been proved: even after a full row of “keep” votes FP regulars have no problem to vote with “delist” – or whatever is the other direction. FP regulars are anything else than a will-less herd ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not persuaded. Btw, the Wikipedia community is by far the more individual lot; the only reason I edit on Commons is to get my English Wikipedia account unblocked; it will take another 55 days for that to happen. I believe that FPC needs change, which I may bring about because I won't adhere to these "unwritten rules or practices". Nevertheless, I would want to express my gratitude to Aristeas and W.carter for their thorough and insightful comments. 20 upper 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist I agree with El Grafo. FP's main goal should be to help end-users find good pictures of a particular subject. I understand the challenges of delisting a boatload of old FPs but, when faced with an execution challenge, one needs to change the approach, not the goal --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cognitive biases such as herd behaviour and tribalism are part of human nature, I don't think that the FP crowd or any other group should assume they're immune to them. Would be interesting to run a few images through the current open voting process and a blind one where you couldn't see the votes of others... my hunch is that the results could be quite different! --Julesvernex2 (talk)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 delist, 5 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /BigDom (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Rhinoceros_in_South_Africa_adjusted.jpg&oldid=813380848"