Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Schwalbenschwanz, Papilio machaon.jpg

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

File:Schwalbenschwanz, Papilio machaon.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 13:05:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Very little is in focus and the compostion is not great. Please compare with nomination below. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Charles (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our interpretations of the rules differs. I believe I am entitled to nominate any image for delisting. I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". The community may disagree. And the rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comment on the other/above delist nom, I've changed Colin's FPX to a cmt. Please revert if you don't agree. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK if 2+2 is allowed. However, I retain the view that this is clearly an invalid "delist and replace" spread over three nominations. This isn't what we do on Commons. If Charles wants Commons FP to be a place where photographers take a new photo of something and then go around delisting all the previous "inferior" photos of that subject, then please go change the rules. Currently that is explicitly disallowed. -- Colin (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep An FP is not only about technical quality, it is just as much (sometimes even more) about composition. This photo brings out a three-dimensional aspect, something the other photos lack. Having multiple photos of a subject is not only within the rules, it is also very useful to see different aspects of the same thing. I'm only waiting for a blue hour or head on photo of this beautiful butterfly to add to the series. :-) I don't think it's constructive to treat FPs like VIs and ask for delists as soon as a new photo of a subject is nominated. --Cart (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep entirely different photo -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This nomination is explicitly against the rules and not Commons practice. On Commons, if we take/find a better picture of a subject, we are just happy to nominate the new one. That's what everyone else does, Charles. We don't go around eliminating all the old ones, which have nothing wrong with them. That sort of delist-and-replace belongs on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Boothsift exactly. Charles is a regular at WP FP so I think he confuses the separate purposes of the two projects. WP FP has one featured lead photo in an article, generally, so has to delist and replace it when a better one comes along. Whereas on Commons, we are just happy that someone has taken a new and perhaps better image: more images for people to enjoy and use. No need to go around pissing on the old ones. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually had no idea that there could only be one FP of each subject on WP, thanks for the info. So this is just some sort of confusion on Charles' part between the sites. I like Commons' way better, the more the merrier. :-) --Cart (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion on my part. I understand the different FP rules between Wikipedia and Commons. Unlike Colin and Cart. Wikipedia can and does have more than one FP in an article and frequently more than one FP of the same species. There are multiple FPs of lion, cheetah, elephant, siberian tiger, zebra, meerkat, olive baboon etc. Charles (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I should read the rules for WP:FP myself instead of relying on secondary info here to get this sorted out. --Cart (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said FP can only have one FP. I said "generally". Which is true for I guess probably over 90% of Wikipedia FPs (the very popular animals Charles lists will of course be more likely to have two great photos that could be used in an article). Where we have two photos offering the same "Passport identification" purposes then clearly WP only needs one in the lead and thus only one can be featured. If you want to replace a featured lead, you go through the delist-and-replace process. In fact, Charles's butterflies are a good example of multiple-WP-FP per article, where there may be male and female and mating photos. But other than that, Wikipedia isn't going to have two featured standard-composition female butterfly X's on a flower/rock. Wikipedia has the additional problem that FP's lose their status just because someone removes them from an article: there are three Zebra FPs but only two are in (separate) articles, so one of them will eventually be noticed and demoted. Charles is clearly trying to export the WP concept to Commons, and if he would look at how other people have handled multiple-FPs of a subject over the years, he will note that that isn't what is done here.
This photo got 16 solid support, so was speedy promoted only 5 years ago. It was taken with a Nikon D800E and quality macro lens, both of which are still a match for contemporary equipment (and indeed greatly exceed the quality most of us use). There's zero reason to demote it on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peulle, the rules are clear already and already limit what delist is for. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This is exactly what Charles has done. "Please compare with nomination below" says it all. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Well said. Charles (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Schwalbenschwanz,_Papilio_machaon.jpg&oldid=362867332"