Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg

===Delist:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg=== Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015  at 02:09:40 (UTC)
 * Reason:Unused. Replaced by File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - May 2007.jpg, by the same photographer.
 * Articles this image appears in:None.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg
 * Nominator: — Chris Woodrich (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  'Delist' Agreed, no need to keep both FPs. I didn't know there was still a duplicate. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2007 image isn't an FP, apparently. This never passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point. That's the problem with duplicates, or virtual duplicates - sometimes they really complicate matters. Some people prefer one, some people prefer the other but support for any one version is diluted by choice. Looks like that nomination failed because support was split between both, and yet the one that people almost half of the people supported (the one being delisted) is now the one that isn't being used. I wonder if the better solution is simply to use this image in one or more articles instead then. It's so similar to the version being that it's a trivial change to make. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist – Sca (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist (for now, neutral on replacing) . Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delist – SagaciousPhil  - Chat 07:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hold on. I think, as per my comments above, the more sensible proposition is to decide whether this image or this image should be used in the various articles that relate to it. Realistically, it should be a delist and replace nomination rather than a straight delist because its 'successor' is being used, and only failed to pass because nobody could agree on which image was better, rather than because nobody thought either should be featured. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have, yes, but I doubt 2 days will be enough to reach a consensus on that. We can try, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be simple enough to veto this nomination then, by re-adding this image into one or more articles. ;-) There'd be a persuasive argument in favour of it, since it's a FP and the other image is not... I don't mean to making a pain of myself but it seems like delisting is counterproductive. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let's try a D&R. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you update your !vote. IMO you could notify the other participant about the d&r proposal so they reply swiftly. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging Sca and Josh.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R - Rather prefer the colors of the 2007 image, and it is used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R – Happy to be guided by Chris and Diliff's opinions as to the correct procedure. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * D&R, but I have to say on reflection that I prefer the texture of the original image and would equally support adding the 'original' image into an article, I don't think there would be significant opposition to that. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the slightly off-corner shot for its sense of depth. Thus I'd say: first choice keep, second choice d&r. Chick Bowen 22:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep? – I agree with Diliff. I did notice the texture (and depth) on second glance, but I'm confused about voting D&R if we're keeping the original. Sca (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

-- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unused" is a sufficient reason in itself for delist. Doesn't seem to be a quorum to promote the new one; can nominate it for FP seperately; however, an unused image cannot be an FP, that's a strict criterion that no vote can overturn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute. I admit I lost track of this nomination so I didn't do what I was planning to do.. But as per the votes, we didn't vote to delist. We voted to delist and replace - only a single vote was for delist only. The equivalent ('replacement' image) is used in many articles and it would have been trivial to replace it in the article with the original - in many ways, as per the discussion, it is a superior image. I think you've jumped the gun here, although I concede that a lot of time passed without any action. I think it would have been more prudent though, to have had a quick quorum about what to do with it before going for a straight delist, given the discussion above. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a tough decision, but you must agree that if the image isn't used, it cannot, as in, there is a blanket ban on it being a featured image. I'd prefer to do this as D&R, but it's a vote short of "R", and I don't think we should push a promotion through without cause. This was open for over a month. There was plenty of time for the original to be added to articles; that it was not rather precludes it remaining an FP.   Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, but you know how sometimes discussions and nominations stall and people forget about them when they no longer show up on watchlists. That doesn't mean we just close them and move on, we prod people and try to find a solution that best suits the situation. This was a bureaucratic close but not a sensible one IMO. If it was genuinely not being used because it was replaced by something better, fine. But the image in use is arguably not better, and I doubt there would be any arguments in swapping it in at least one of the major articles. Yes, it didn't happen in time, but that's just because I forgot, not because it couldn't be done. Hence a prod would have been the better action. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to reverse if:
 * The image is used in at least a few relevant articles
 * It stays there for at least one week.
 * Until it's stable in articles, I don't see much point arguing. You have still not added it to a single article. Usage is not an optional criterion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only arguing about the procedural aspect of closing it before the actions agreed upon in the nomination (the replace) had taken place, not whether usage is an optional criterion. Anything can be reversed, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think it should have happened in the first place without at least some poking of the involved parties. Let it stand, what's done is done. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree there should have been prodding, I'd also say that should have happened when the nom was suspended. One shouldn't need to prod a month into a 10-day nomination before closing it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)