Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpg/2

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

File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2016 at 13:09:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winding tower of the former coal mine named “Pêchon”.
  •  strong oppose Per 6 supports × 0 opposes last month. This is game-playing, Arion. We don't keep nominating till we get the result we like. Please accept lack of support == not featured. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question Is there a rule for/against this? In my eyes it’s just bad behaviour – renominate it until it passes, and I had a strong impulse to oppose just for principle, which is a pity because the image is fine and does not deserve this. We ought to discuss about this (no re-nomination within 3 months or so). --Kreuzschnabel 18:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't have thought that Arion is playing games... It was one vote away from a pass and had no opposes last time. Perhaps he genuinely thought that perhaps it just needed more eyes on it? If it was 6 supports and 3 opposes, it would be a different story. If it's really so far away from passing, why didn't more people oppose it last time? You don't need to hate an image to oppose it, you simply need to disagree that it's FP-worthy. I think any discussion generated by this nomination should be more about why we don't oppose images more often, rather than whether it's acceptable to renominate an image where it was just a single vote away from passing last time. I know people are not very keen to oppose other people's photos, but for FPC to be a successful project, we need to be just as likely to oppose as support. Diliff (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't suggesting that Arion was doing this in bad faith but the effect is just gaming the system. Yes the problem is that "wow" is a requirement for FP and most people vote "oppose" on "wow" by simply not voting at all. Thus lack of enthusiasm for a picture is an implicit "no wow" vote by the community. I've complained about lack of explicit opposes many times, and the culture hasn't changed, so we have to live with a lot of timid reviewers who don't want to upset anyone (or their chances on their own nominations :-). So I think we should respect that this is how the community votes, and unless the image is altered/improved then it shouldn't really be proposed again. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, Kreuzschnabel, Diliff, are you going to vote on this? FWIW, I feel this is a insufficient wow image, separate from my views on renominating. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Take a cup of tea and relax --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Putting my vote where my mouth is. It's nice enough, but it's not strong enough to meet our standards IMO. Diliff (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Procedural oppose I believe I supported this last time, but I agree with Colin that it is too soon to try again unless there was some significant edit that had been made. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Daniel Case. I don’t think this is good practice which should be rewarded by success. --Kreuzschnabel 05:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. On reflection, since the argument that a photo that wasn't approved for a feature a month ago shouldn't be eligible for reconsideration yet is one I agree with, I can't support this photo again without being hypocritical. In the meantime, I think it is important to have a clear rule on how soon after an unsuccessful nomination the same picture can be renominated, with special allowances perhaps being made for edits that were done to the picture in response to criticism (of which, unfortunately, there was none in this case). Let's have that discussion on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Couillet_-_chevalements_de_la_mine_du_Pêchon_-_7.jpg/2&oldid=197165910"