Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg
-
Delist (breeding plumage) -
Replace (non-breeding plumage) -
Not in article (FP, breeding plumage), plan to reinstate -
Taxobox (FP, juvenile)
- Reason
- There are Juvenile and Breeding Plumage FPs for this species. I propose to delist this one in favour of the new one so that there can be a featured picture of each in the article. No single image could give the same EV.
- Articles this image appears in
- White-faced Heron
- Nominator
- Noodle snacks (talk)
- Delist and Replace — Noodle snacks (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delist and replace If I understand you correctly,
is being delisted, and your proposing replace with 
.. the other two images (
and 
) are not part of the nomination and are just to illustrate how the new FP if passes will fit with the other 2? Slightly confusing I must say. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC) - Yep, that is the proposal. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delist and replace. This seems sound- clearly, there is room for the three different images. Which do you intend to use in the taxobox? J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps 2 and 3. The juvenile should probably go in the body of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- That would be my choice, as well, unless the males and females have different plumage? J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps 2 and 3. The juvenile should probably go in the body of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delist and replace: Agree with reasoning. Maedin\talk 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delist and replace. Yeah, makes sense, but to be honest this is a case where I don't really think this should have been a D&R. If you were replacing the breeding plumage with a better breeding plumage one, then sure, but you're replacing a breeding plumage with non-breeding, then just reinstating a different breeding plumage that's already featured to the article. Confusing for sure. Lighting on the delist nom isn't optimal, the replacement is good but should probably have been a regular nom. --jjron (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Promoted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 1.jpg
- Delisted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg
This will be treated as two separate nominations, a promotion and a delist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
