Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpg/2

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 08:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renomination according to this discussion about PumpkinSky and HalfGig. Also took some of the hints in the original discussion for granted and cropped out the top of the mountain to the far left of the image so more of the skiers is visible and they also move a bit towards the center. -- Granada (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The same as my former vote. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like I said before. --cart-Talk 09:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charles (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like last time.--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The skiers are nice but the background at this degree of blur gives me a headache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As before. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About re-nominations

Question I just thought of something. While we can all agree that the sockpuppetry and double voting on images constitutes acts of sabotage against the voting system, isn't there a danger that we're sabotaging it ourselves as well, if we're renominating all images where it happened? If that single vote that was added erroneously would not affect the result of the vote, I get the feeling that a renomination could be seen as a sneaky way of getting another chance that isn't necessarily deserved. If there is voting fraud with a few votes in a political election where one side won by a landslide, holding the whole election again surely seems a bit superfluous. As for this image, the old vote was 13-8, meaning the true result should have been 13-7. What's the ratio needed for featuring again - two thirds? Are we looking at this when renominating or will all images be renominated?--Peulle (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are blowing this out of proportion. There will be no mass-re-nomination. Only six photos were demoted as a result of double voting. The only image that has been re-nominated in its original state is the elderly gentleman above. That it is unaltered is understandable since the nominator is not the creator. This here nomination with the skiers has been altered since the faulty nom and would have been allowed a second nomination even without the PS/HG debacle. XRay chose to not re-nominate his demoted pic and selected another similar photo instead. I will not re-nominate my demoted image, since I have moved on from it. I very much doubt anyone will re-nominate PumpkinSky's two demoted photos (1 & 2). Calling other users "sneaky" is totally uncalled for and only shows bad faith. --cart-Talk 11:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 photos? OK, not a big problem, then. I had the impression it was a lot more. :) --Peulle (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were also 93 (I think it was in the end...) more photos where a double vote was made, but in those cases removing one of the votes didn't change the result of the voting. Perhaps you mixed up those numbers. --cart-Talk 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peulle's comment is rather fair here. On the previous nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:20180126_FIS_NC_WC_Seefeld_850_1484.jpg, the final result was 13-9 (not 13-8) including a fraudulous vote. Thus, the score became 13-8 after removing HalfGig's oppose, not a critical result. But even if we exclude both votes by the same person, it makes 13-7, and still not two thirds to promote. Then, I'm not sure this second chance is very relevant, although I can imagine how frustrating was the scam during the first process -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, the first nom was withdrawn prematurely, so we can't know what the final score might have been. And once again: This photo was altered between the nominations and would have been allowed a second nomination even under normal circumstances. No one is trying to game the system. --cart-Talk 08:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with the withdrawal I didn't pay attention to that. Fair enough then -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case I was unclear, I don't want to suspect my fellow Commoners for "sneaking in" extra chances for promotions in an unjustified manner, I was just thinking it may be cluttering up FPC with lots of images if we're renominating all of them (of course, not a problem if there are just a few). The best idea then IMO would be to renominate those images that actually lost or won with a narrow margin. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no need to worry about that any more since this was the last of the re-nominations. There will be no more. --cart-Talk 08:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The blurred mountains are too dominant in the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports