Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klippen von Helgoland mit Langer Anna.jpg

File:Klippen von Helgoland mit Langer Anna.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 08:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Klippen von Helgoland mit Langer Anna.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klippen von Helgoland mit Langer Anna.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
•  Info The cliffs at the northwestern end of Heligoland with the Lange Anna. Other light, other position then my last nomination von hier. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Previous FP is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpg. (Previous failed FP by A.Savin Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heligoland 07-2016 photo15.jpg). Are you proposing to delist the other, which was criticised for poor lighting and only just passed 2:1 ratio. -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose because of similar FP (but would support a "delist and replace"). --A.Savin 11:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Not really. May there be only one FP of each motive? By a close look, location and perspective are actually different (see the wall for example), day and lighting are also. So I think a separat nomination is justified. --Milseburg (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  So if you think that both pictures complement each other well and without redundancies, you should have nominated them as a set, which I, however, would not have supported (you know why). --A.Savin 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment Currently the unwritten case law is that recently promoted FPs should not be delisted except in the case of procedural error. I am genuinely not sure how I'd feel about changing that, but unless general consensus is obtained for such a thing, recent FPs should not be nominated for D&R. So in the meantime  Support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • King of Hearts I think the delist issue with recent promotions was to avoid a case where someone was unhappy that an image got promoted and merely wanted to run the process again in order to get the result they wanted. A sort of "what were you guys thinking?" but ends up wasting our time as the same group of people still vote the same way. I don't think that affects D&R at all. I think here, Milseburg has taken the criticism of the previous nom on board, gone out to try to take a better picture in better light. The angle/crop is slightly different but the basic motif is the same. I don't think we should promote both, and the other one is clearly weaker. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, I got confused and didn't realize these two were by the same nominator. In that case a D&R is very much reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the other one better. Also, the guy on the right is bugging me.--Peulle (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per savin ¦ Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - The rock is too much in my face in this one. I like the other one better, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per savin.--Vulphere 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also prefer the other one, good image though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others sorry--Boothsift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there have been no new support !votes in four days besides the nominator's

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)