Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Pavo cristatus head001xx.jpg

Image:Pavo cristatus head001xx.jpg featured without discussion - delisted

Nominated for delisting (after a hint from Pfctdayelise) by Roger McLassus 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

•  Delist extremely low resolution and nothing outstanding to counterbalance it. Furthermore I apply stricter criteria for pictures once listed without discussion. Roger McLassus 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist ack. Darkone 13:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist res -- Gorgo 18:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist anything that was added without discussion pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist FML ^hi 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist LoopZilla 10:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist This is a no-brainer. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral extremly low resolution, but very nice Ss181292 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist Dannycas 03:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist ack pfctdayelise Kessa Ligerro 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
•  Delist if it wasn't properly featured in the first place it shouldn't have to go through a formal delisting either... --Dschwen 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This image was the first featured picture ever on this project. It received its featured status before a formal nomination process was put in place, at a time when the Commons was relatively new. Now that we have many excellent pictures, the bar has been raised and a review is appropriate. However, if the main concern is that it was "featured without discussion", perhaps someone should ask Aurevilly how FP nominations worked in the first two months of this project. He is the administrator who put it on Commons:Featured pictures in the first place. Has anyone bothered to find out where the FPC discussions took place at that time? This is not entirely obvious for anything featured before March 2005; see this discussion for further background. And why should there be a double standard? ("Furthermore I apply stricter criteria for pictures once listed without discussion.") Either something meets our explicit and implicit criteria for FP status, or it doesn't. --MarkSweep 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this picture obviously does not. But as for the other pictures that were once featured without a formal (and archived) voting, I think we should start a discussion on the appropriate page. Roger McLassus 06:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep - Low resolution - yes - but what was the technology when it was listed. In 2-3 years pictures we feature now will have low resolution, do we use this as part of our consideration now? Historically to commons this image is more significant then any we vote on now, there will only ever be one 1st featured picture, no matter where technology takes pictures this is where we started. Gnangarra 10:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delisted pictures don't just disappear. They simply change their status from "featured picture" to "formerly featured picture" and will hold the latter forever. They are only removed from the actual FP-list but stay in the chronological list with the comment "delisted". As soon as this one gets delistet (which is very likely to happen) I'll create a template {{Formerly featured picture}} and insert it instead of the template {{Featured picture}} in the image-page. Roger McLassus 16:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • that's the whole point of delisting. Quote from above: "Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case." -- Gorgo 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

10 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral --> delisted Roger McLassus 13:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)