Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg 2nd Nom

Image:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg - failedEdit


  •   Info Sachsenhausen, suburbia of Frankfurt on the Main, around 1600 (opposite direction view of a already featured image)
  •   Info created by Doenertier82 - uploaded by Doenertier82 - renominated by Ben Aveling 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support This just failed because it didn't have enough support. But it looked like it had enough support to pass, until two votes were struck. So I suspect that, were it not for those invalid votes, it would attracted other, valid, votes. So I'm going to renominate it and give it another chance. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment Although I voted in favour of your picture in the first nomination, I don't think it's appropriate to nominate again a picture that just failed the FPC process, at least not before a certain time (6 months to a year seems to be a good time to re-nominate IMO). The same situation of this FPC may occur with another FPC where only 1 late oppose vote makes the picture fails. For your nomination. every voter had 9 days to vote, and if they didn't, it's probably because either they had no opinion on your picture, were not feeling comfortable voting for this kind of image, or it's a subject that does not interest them (I rarely vote for birds or flowers myself for that reason), not because they thought there was enough votes to make it FP IMO. I suggest you withdraw your nomination and you re-nominate at a later time, giving other voters the chance to join and to evaluate your image. --S23678 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The struck votes I was referring to were not mine, but Eagle01/Simba123. That is, it looked like it had 6 votes in favour, and none in opposition - not counting the nominator who did not vote for some reason. 2 of those votes were struck with one or two days of time left to vote, by which stage people would have seen it, seen that it had enough support, and not bothered to vote. Having been around a while, I've seen that people are more likely to vote if the vote is close. Once it lost the 2 votes, it was a long way down the page, where most people wouldn't realise that anything had changed. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it was very recently declined (please wait a reasonable time to renominate) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Lycaon, S23678, the nominator did not vote on this. Another 4 people who thought this is FP worthy did. (Not counting myself - I didn't vote until too late because I thought it already had sufficient support). Exactly zero people voted against it. What would you consider a reasonable time to wait? 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 6 month to 1 year IMO. I understand the special situation for this nomination (I supported the image!), but I think we should apply the same rules to everyone to make it fair. I think the main goal of this is not to encourage people to resubmit over and over again the same image until it passes the voting process. The delay changes nothing to this image, it's just longer to make it FP (if it becomes FP). --S23678 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there is any rule on this. For me, the question is, what is sensible. If it is FP quality now, then why can't it be nominated? If it isn't FP quality, what difference does 6 months make? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also believe it is good practice to wait a bit to renominate, though a couple of months (say 3-4) should suffice IMO. Lycaon (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)