Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Love or duty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Love or duty[edit]

"Love or Duty" by Gabriele Castagnola, 1873.
Reason
I was rather surprised to find this promoted image in the Archives (nom here). Given I visit FP almost daily, I was surprised an image had been promoted in the last week that I had never even seen. I then found that a few editors had colluded to have this image promoted for Valentine’s Day, and this image had spent less than two days on FPC before promotion.
Sorry, with no offence meant to anyone involved (who I’m sure were all acting with the best of intentions), this is entirely inappropriate. This image needs to be delisted and go through a proper FPC candidacy. Whether it meets criteria is not really relevant; what is relevant is that it has not had to go through the process that all other images do. Let its status be determined properly please.
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delist and renominate properly according to requirements. Certain privileged editors are not above the requirements. — jjron (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No objection if the procedural issue gives serious offense. DurovaCharge! 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No objection here either. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC). Is the issue that it was promoted out of its turn in the queue, or that it had only spent two days on FPC? What are the applicable rules for this? (I'm not trying to argue with you; but I took a quick look at the top of the FPC page and at the page that describes FP criteria and didn't see a description of the protocol that you are saying was violated.)
      • Start of the third paragraph at the top of this page: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support...". If it was up for say five days, and clearly going to get through I wouldn't worry, but two days is a bit beyond it. --jjron (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Rules can be ignored, especially if there is consensus to do so. MER-C 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So can I ignore the rule that says I have to put my noms up on FPC at all - why I don't just tag them FP and pop them in the archives. Gee, WP:IAR says I can do so. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Spikebrennan had a spur-of-the-moment idea that seemed like a really fun and positive thing. I trust he intended it respectfully - I certainly did. If it causes other hardworking editors offense, then by all means take it down and renominate. Yet I'll also ask the other editors here to please head over to the FPC talk page and help compile a list of holiday FP requests so we can do this kind of thing on a long enough time frame that everyone is satisfied. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I did think I saw something weird when I noticed an FP that I thought had just been nominated to FPC. It's unfair to the others having to wait months for their FP to show up on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-17 05:26Z
  • Delist Unfairly promoted. Muhammad(talk) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and renom I didn't like this project either, it was too last minute. Clegs (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why we're having a discussion about whether we are going to have a discussion (it reminds me of Macbeth act 1 scene 1) so it's best if we tackle the underlying issue. Is there another reason, apart from process, why this shouldn't be featured? MER-C 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Precedent, consistency, fairness... Look, I've seen noms up here (in fact I've had noms of my own) that have had nothing but supports after the first day or two, that have later been shot down. In future, shall I just put them through as promoted once they pick up four supports? You specifically pointed out to Dengero that closing after two days was innappropriate, but had already done the same thing yourself. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's more important to enforce fair procedures than to have this listed because if procedures aren't enforced then crappy images can get in or good images can be ignored and the whole system breaks down-- I call this a mistrial. Delist the thing (honestly, why does this even need a delist discussion, just rip that FP tag off since it's not a featured picture; just "rv vandalism") and renom it so we can get this thing featured already, it's a good image. :D\=< (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted . --John254 06:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)