Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Macroglossum stellatarum.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Macroglossum stellatarum.jpg, delisted[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2009 at 09:39:14
Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Far too low resolution (0.9 Mpx). Can be retaken, ergo no mitigation. We have high standards for insect macros.
Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)- Delist --Avala (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist -- Petritap (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep Image from year 2003 - size in that time was something different than now. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- So we give preferential treatment to images because they were nominated in the past? That's insulting and unfair to those who nominate today! FP standards have grown and will continue to grow. In the future, are we going to have categories like "Featured Pictures from 2007-2011", "Featured Pictures from 2011-2015" etc., with a candidate on FPC getting turned down even though 50% of Featured Pictures are worse than it, but they just happen to have been nominated earlier? I sure as hell hope not! -- JovanCormac 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. If somebody was awarded Olympic medal in year 2002 and the rules for that sport will changed in 2005, nobody will want to take this medal from him back. If image is nice (and this one is), there is necessary judge it under conditions in the time of nomination. If not, only several quite new imges could stay as FP, because technical parameters of cameras will go forward all the time and images will be bigger and better... --Karel (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's your example that is nonsense, I'm afraid. The Featured Picture label is very clear about what it says: This is one of our finest images. It does not say: This was one of the finest images we had back in 2004. Nobody would claim that an athlete who has won Olympic gold back in 1990 is one of the greatest athletes in the world today, yet this is what the FP label stands for. For this reason, one really cannot make a comparison here. -- JovanCormac 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. If somebody was awarded Olympic medal in year 2002 and the rules for that sport will changed in 2005, nobody will want to take this medal from him back. If image is nice (and this one is), there is necessary judge it under conditions in the time of nomination. If not, only several quite new imges could stay as FP, because technical parameters of cameras will go forward all the time and images will be bigger and better... --Karel (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- So we give preferential treatment to images because they were nominated in the past? That's insulting and unfair to those who nominate today! FP standards have grown and will continue to grow. In the future, are we going to have categories like "Featured Pictures from 2007-2011", "Featured Pictures from 2011-2015" etc., with a candidate on FPC getting turned down even though 50% of Featured Pictures are worse than it, but they just happen to have been nominated earlier? I sure as hell hope not! -- JovanCormac 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist Too small. We have a delist candidate section for just this purpose; FP's that do not meet the evolving standards. --Relic38 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist per nom. Lycaon (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist —kallerna™ 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist --Korall (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist --Avala (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /reviewed
