Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral (strop Cerkev sv. Nikolaja, Ljubljana).jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral (strop Cerkev sv. Nikolaja, Ljubljana).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2021 at 07:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Comment I certainly don't care who the author is. I take your point and   Support this photo, without prejudice to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment The existing FP is redundant, as the nominated picture shows exactly the same (+ more), and has more resolution/detail. That said, I would support a D&R. Regards --A.Savin 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment "shows exactly the same (+ more)" - this means it is actually a different crop. Delist and replace could be done just if I crop this same to that one. I believe both can be FP, in any case everyone can nominate Delist. This picture can't be a "prisoner" of other photos. --Mile (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, don't interprete the rules or make up new rules, in terms of delist and replace this is all we have as a guide:

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images.

— in: Commons:Featured picture candidates (section Featured picture delisting candidates)
This candidate fully meets those criteria. If the angle would be different or we had more elements detail in the original one I could understand this discussion, but it isn't the case.
When I pointed out that the author is the same I didn't mean with that, that this is a relevant criteria for the process, but rather that you know that you have an FP of the same subject from the same POV with much lower resolution. Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text quoted by Poco actually clearly explains that Delist and Replace is not relevant to this image: "In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject". This is a completely new photo, not an edit of an existing or Google Art Project rescan of an identical painting. It doesn't matter that Mile is the photographer of both. @A.Savin, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Poco a poco: let's not confuse this with English Wikipedia FP, where there can only be one image at FP, or where a better image routinely substitutes for a weaker one and is replaced in the article. If we habitually D&R'd images of the same subject, leaving only one, we'd have to delist several images of the moon, and Poco's Basílica de Notre-Dame would have pushed out Diliff's version, to name just two examples. By all means nominate the old photo for delist if you think it "no longer deserves to be a featured picture" but there's no reason to link it with this nomination. An old featured picture doesn't become crap because get a better one. It makes no sense to oppose this nomination just because there's a weaker one already in the collection. Guys, we are supposed to oppose a nomination if there is already better one in the collection! -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's purely a procedural oppose, which doesn't affect the result. If Mile wanted to behave more respectfully, he should have changed this nom to a D+R. "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured...", but de facto these *are* two different versions, even though not the same picture. Regards --A.Savin 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin, with respect, you are wrong. Mile doesn't need to do a D&R out of "respect" this is not what a D&R is for. They are not the same picture, which refers to what comes out your camera. You and I could take photos of the Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral at the same time, and they would be two different pictures, even if very similar. These two images are of the same subject, that's all, and one captures a significantly larger portion of the walls and ceiling. Nobody insisted that Poco D&R Diliff's cathedral. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can give as many considerations as you want about the process and the intention of D&R. If that rule does not apply here where an old image with less detail and crop is replaced by another one of higher resolution with a bigger crop, then that rule is useless and we need either to change it or introduce a new one. If I look for the finest of Commons and get 10 similar pictures of the same subject and this rules doesn't help for such a case to sort things out, then that rule is useless. That's what I think. Still I will not go back to all those places which have already a FP of mine or of somebody else with a better equipment because that hardly helps the project. Instead we should encourage the photographers to provide new material. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco and A.Savin, the current D&R rules were proposed here by King of Hearts. It was then added by KoH. The intention was very clearly for "re-edited versions of the same image" or where someone had got hold of a better (higher resolution, better colour/condition) scan of an artwork. The point is to prevent two FPs of an identical source image, only with different processing or resolution. The previous FP here, from six years ago, was 11MP and the single-frame image didn't capture all of the ceiling. The new stitched FPC is 71MP and has no significant crop. You might not feel motivated to take better versions of your own FPs but there are plenty subjects that could do with higher-quality featured pictures, and this one is a huge plus for the project. You weren't required to D&R Diliff's cathedral interior when you nominated yours. BTW, if a photographer wants to D&R their old FP because they feel the old one clearly doesn't meet FP standards, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with folk opposing a new photograph, hugely superior and FP quality, taken six years later, on some misreading of the rules. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Slovenia
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ceiling_of_Ljubljana_Cathedral_(strop_Cerkev_sv._Nikolaja,_Ljubljana).jpg&oldid=617083867"