Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:JarrahFence gobeirne.jpg

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

File:JarrahFence gobeirne.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2019 at 17:28:24
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Not very sharp nor interesting. The flower in the picture is a bird of paradise (Strelitzia) and like wooden fences, they are fairly common. We have better pictures of picket fences with better compositions. (Original nomination)
  •  Delist -- Boothsift 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Was made an FP in 2005, but is no longer one in 2019, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Nice idea but bad crop, and by no means outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We really need to stop this, please Boothsift, find another thing to do. This passed happily as an FP and has not deteriorated, nor is FP chock full of superior alternatives. I really really really do not think delist is simply another chance for you to spin the roulette wheel of whatever the random audience of the day finds "interesting". That you personally disagree with the original reviewers is not a reason to delist. Why do we keep seeing "not very sharp" spurious delist rationales? Go look up "plane of focus". This is just optics: some bits are sharp and some are not. Not every picture on Commons is a boring "passport identification photo" for the top-right of a Wikipedia article or needs to be focus stacked from 26 images. The fact that the plant or this fence is, in your opinion, "fairly common" isn't relevant. There are lots of fence designs and this one certainly isn't common where I live. Apparently it is typical of Western Australia, made of Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and is a picket fence -- and is illustrative enough to be used in all three articles and on 27 different Wikipedias. As I mentioned in a previous nomination, any fool can find faults with an image if they are so inclined. And anyone can support/delist "per nom" without mental or emotional effort. It is even easier when the nominator isn't around and you don't even take the courtesy to inform them of the delist. It takes a bit of artistic confidence to explain why an image is appealing, and this is clearly a good illustration of a Australian Jarrah Picket fence. Selecting old FPs for reviewing once again is imo a dumb way to spend your time on earth, and is a waste of our time as reviewers. Move on. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While I like your point about how this is a good illustration of this type of fence, I cannot agree with your final point. Just as adding new FPs is what we do here, we should also review existing FPs from time to time. As the Guidelines point out, "The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent. As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted." Therefore we need an active process of looking at the old images again; it's not time wasted, it's what this place is for. Some images will be delisted while others will be kept as the Community votes on it.--Peulle (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep absolutely per Colin. This delisting spree should end, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist On the one hand, I don't find mass campaigns on delisting useful -- perhaps we should limit the number of active delist nominations per user too, just like we have the 2 FP nominations limit. On the other hand, what do I see on this picture? A wooden fence that is rather boring (if not to say ugly), and a plant behind it, that is not prominently visible. Really nothing eye-catching here and I doubt that I would have supported this picture even back in 2005. --A.Savin 11:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Peulle, etc, I'll offer two ideas:
    • Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Repeat this internally every time you justify something is allowed/permitted/described by "the rules". We had very few and infrequent delists of this sort until recently. What has changed isn't the rules, but a behaviour by a few nominators. Perhaps we'll need to change the rules to stop this behaviour, but it would be easier if it just stopped by itself.
    • Why wasn't I consulted? "This image is a featured picture, and I wasn't consulted, and now that I look at it, I don't think it is all that great. I want my opinion to be heard and count. Look, I can press this [Delist] button and the Internet will get to hear my views on it. I have a voice that will be heard!" This is the question that the author of that linked article claims the Internet provides an answer for [which doesn't make it good, it just is]. We need to recognise that most people here today were not reviewing back then. You have a different opinion than them. So what? It is not, in the grand scheme of things, important that your and my opinions today influence the entire body of work we call "Featured Pictures". Some of it was decided by other people. Deal with it. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, I actually have a lot of sympathy with what you’re saying, it does seem to be a waste of time for the community to spend so much energy assessing old images rather than focussing on reviewing high-quality content being produced today. That said, Boothsift opened the review, and I agree with A. Savin that I probably wouldn’t have supported this picture even in 2005. But I don’t think I fit into your category of people who are voting to delist images ‘per nom’ without putting in any effort, and in fact I’ve strongly defended at least two images recently against what I saw as unfair delist requests even though they probably wouldn’t be promoted today. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmao20, my point about "anyone can support/delist "per nom" without mental or emotional effort" doesn't of course mean that any one such vote did not involve effort. Some people put a lot of investigation and effort into their support votes at FPC but we know that it doesn't require any effort to vote support. And a "per nom" rationale also doesn't require any effort. Similarly for a delist, then the default "no brain required" vote is to agree to delist. You don't have to justify it with any rationale of your own. That's what makes these so harmful and such a timesink for anyone who does want to take the time. And it also says to the voters of the first nomination that those guys really were wasting their time. They clearly should have waited for more intelligent and gifted reviewers to turn up ;-). -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colin: I find it ironic that you're doing the same thing you're complaining about - if someone is of the opinion that some images should be tested for delisting, why are their opinions worth less than yours? Just because you're carpet bombing the discussion with bold text, that doesn't necessarily mean you're in the right. The nominations are following the guidelines and so far, it's not like all the noms have been dismissed - some have been supported and others rejected. So in the spirit of "dealing with it": if you don't agree with their nominations, either refrain from voting on them or (better) utter your opinion in order for it to carry the day. If the community agrees with your points, your view will prevail.--Peulle (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha ha I probably did get carried away with the bold. I'm really not doing the same thing. What we are doing now is having a discussion, and you can write more or fewer words if you want while this page is open. The community have (and had) the opportunity to agree and disagree while the nomination is (was) open. But once the nomination is closed, why should it be re-opened? One can make an argument that an image, in its category, is simply outclassed now. But that's not Boothsift's argument. He doesn't like the picture. He doesn't find it interesting. He didn't get the chance to vote last time and wants one now. I don't think that is a reasonable or respectful thing to do. It is quite disrespectful to those nine people who supported it the first time, and doing this in secret without alerting the photographer, is rather disrespectful to them. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should it be re-opened? To satisfy the point made in the guidelines, of course, what else? It says that "As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted". That means we should reexamine images from time to time. While I would agree with you that it would be against the intentions of the guidelines to open a delist nomination shortly after an FP nomination concluded, this image was promoted in 2005! Surely there is a chance that in the last 14 years, overall image quality has improved to the point at which this is no longer an FP. Sorry bub, you're losing this debate. And the vote, it seems.--Peulle (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Colin: I sincerely apologize for opening this nomination as I wasted your time and for being dumb. Thank you for attacking me, rather than reasonably justifying your opinion. There is absolutely no need to go that far and if you don't like delist nominations, then we can have a vote to get rid of them. Do you think I would care? I said it before, I'm not here to nominate every single Featured Picture in existence to be delisted and I have voted "Keep" for quite a few. I listened to your opinions and withdrew a nomination. Now please keep calm and let me decide what I want to do with my own life. I have nothing against fences, but I don't like this picture. Therefore, I nominated it. Not because I don't like this type of fence nor birds of paradise, but because I found this picture uninteresting. In most of the original nominations, they barely passed anyways. So I don't what you're trying to convey here other than you hate people who open delist nominations like me and Tomer and you think the guidelines are a waste of time --Boothsift 17:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boothsift, there have been many complaints about the recent delists, and there is an open discussion at Talk FPC. You have chosen to ignore or not participate and carry on nominating delists (10 in the last month). Be careful to read carefully in case you make false claims like "attacking me". I didn't call you dumb. I said you were doing a dumb thing, and something that requires no intelligence, skill, effort or consideration of others to do. Your argument "In most of the original nominations, they barely passed anyways." is simply untrue. In many of your delists there was strong and enthusiastic support, and remember that FPC had lower numbers of participants in the past and thresholds were different. There are hundreds of FPs that "barely passed". They are still FPs. Look at your argument now: "I don't like this picture" and "because I found this picture uninteresting". So this isn't because Commons now has so many excellent photos of Western Australian Jarrah Picket Fences that this old one is an embarrassment, but because you weren't consulted the first time, and so you want the nomination reopened so you can be consulted now. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This does not seem to be a clear cut delist, but quite a number of recent delist requests have not been contentious. These delist requests are valid. I don't think that the rationale of 'Not very sharp nor interesting. The flower in the picture is a bird of paradise (Strelitzia) and like wooden fences, they are fairly common' is valid. Nor do I think that Colin should accuse Boothsift of 'doing a dumb thing'. Charles (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✘[No] Colin's hostile comments are completely unacceptable. This nomination is perfectly fine, respecting the guidelines, and it has obvious reasons to delist. Colin is "carpet bombing the discussion", yes. Once again. Boothsift feels attacked, and my impression is the same, absolutely. Colin wants to change the rules and imposes his view to everyone. Because there's no consensus now on the side discussion, this user chooses the disrupting way, polluting a fair candidate and targeting a honest nominator. Now everyone is wasting time. Scandalous -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clear delist Very awkward composition. Strange angle. Uninteresting image : boring subject. Cut flowers. Ugly right side. Looks cluttered. Harsh contrasts. Certainly a mistake from the past. Great to see this nomination here. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist per A. Savin. We can and probably should discuss the merits/advisability of these housecleaning campaigns, and maybe it's time to have a separate review page, but again that's not an issue within the scope of the instant discussion.

    As to the picture itself, let's all hold to the de novo standard we should be reviewing these by: if this was a first-time nomination, would it pass? And for me this would be a pretty quick oppose. Even taking into consideration that a picture like this that has not been focus-stacked is going to have a largely unsharp background, as a pure composition my response is not "Wow!" It's "so what?" Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delist per Basile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 9 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:JarrahFence_gobeirne.jpg&oldid=361130073"