Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Vespa orientalis 2.jpg

File:Vespa orientalis 2.jpg (delist)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 12:42:52

•  Info The original image had very annoying banding in the background due to usage of poor editing software. Gidip (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (Original nomination)
•  Delist and replace -- Gidip (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace Of course.--Jebulon (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace (please overwrite); but such AGF edits by original author don't need a D & R. You can simply overwrite the file (IMHO). Jee 17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it is a very elegant behaviour. And it is better not to overwrite promoted pictures. Now, it will be "official".--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes; I appreciate Gidip's honesty. But a D & R need to be manually closed (I closed this; there are too many entries). It will popup again in next year's POTY, too. So I think it is good to avoid such etc. workloads. Jee 03:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace But per Jee, just overwrite the file and maybe write a message in the FPC talk page to warn the community, but no more. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 04:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)-- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 13:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Process should not trump common sense for such uncontroversial overwrites. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• COM:OVERWRITE used to contain a lot of nonsense about not overwriting Featured or Quality images. I eliminated that a few months ago and suggested care be used: "The image creator may make minor changes where they feel this would be uncontroversial wrt the promotional status (for example, removing dust spots or fixing a minor tilt). Potentially controversial changes should be discussed with members of the forum that promoted the image." So I consider this discussed and approved but agree an alternative informal mechanism would be better. Please Gidip, just overwrite the original with the superior version and request the duplicate be speedy deleted. I strongly do not approve of generating a new FP (or POTY candidate) nor does Commons need two images: a flawed on and an improved one. The easiest way to seek approval is to go ahead with the change in-place and then seek forgiveness (as one can always revert) rather than uploading extra images. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination due to the majority opinion here. Gidip (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)