Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Chambord pano.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 00:01:52 (UTC)
- Reason
- Not in use in the article any more. Superseded by the picture nominated here.
- Articles this image appears in
- None
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chambord pano.jpg
- Nominator
- J Milburn (talk)
- Delist — J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delist Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delist JKadavoor Jee 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. Clearly not as good as the proposed replacement, which looks certain to pass. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delist. Should have been opened as a D&R. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem using two separate processes. Forcing D&R implies that FP status affords protection to an image in the article. It doesn't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is a major problem with using two separate processes when they end up keeping both images when they serve an identical purpose. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with J Milburn. Especially since almost exclusively, a D&R comes as a result of the old FP already having been superseded in an article by a superior image. In fact, I think FP status does afford some protection to an image in an article, if not dogmatically then at least in practice because many editors (even those not involved in FPC) do revert removal of FPs on the basis of them being featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the current implementation of D&R under delist is not very fruitful. Please notice JJH's comment on the D&R request below: "I prefer not to do delist and replaces when nominating as it is tough to get a quorum". I think the best way is to consider a normal FPC as a D&R if anybody (including the nominator) add another FP there (just like an alt/edit) to replace. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- This could very easily be solved by just listing the D/R and delist options with the rest of the nominations. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea; not many people spend time to scroll down and reach here; I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not the best place to discuss it but I'd support reworking D/R's to be up with the rest of the nominations, it is essentially a nomination anyway.. — raekyt 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea; not many people spend time to scroll down and reach here; I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- This could very easily be solved by just listing the D/R and delist options with the rest of the nominations. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- But the current implementation of D&R under delist is not very fruitful. Please notice JJH's comment on the D&R request below: "I prefer not to do delist and replaces when nominating as it is tough to get a quorum". I think the best way is to consider a normal FPC as a D&R if anybody (including the nominator) add another FP there (just like an alt/edit) to replace. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with J Milburn. Especially since almost exclusively, a D&R comes as a result of the old FP already having been superseded in an article by a superior image. In fact, I think FP status does afford some protection to an image in an article, if not dogmatically then at least in practice because many editors (even those not involved in FPC) do revert removal of FPs on the basis of them being featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is a major problem with using two separate processes when they end up keeping both images when they serve an identical purpose. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Delisted --Julia\talk 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
