Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg

Crepuscular rays in ggp
Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 15:19:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:The second image is used in the article "Crepuscular rays." This image is better because there are reflected rays too.
 * Articles this image appears in:Golden Gate Park
 * Previous nomination/s:Link/s to the image's original FPC nomination, and any previous delist noms
 * Nominator: GXK147 (talk)


 * Delist/replace &mdash; GXK147 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep current FP; better colours and lighting, more striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The both images are good, but the second one has many more rays including the ones that are originated from the sun reflections in the lake. That is why this image is better for the article and for FP.--GXK147 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Current FP As Above. The proposed replacement is certainly no improvement. Only different. JFitch   (talk)  12:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a wrong assessment. The new image has rays going up, and rays going down, and rays originating from a different light source. It is the best image for understanding crepuscular rays. --GXK147 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all Since when have we had a rule limiting the number of FPs on a subject? Clegs (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a question of how much each one adds. Naturally, we could and do have several FPs of the moon, each showing different aspects. But we aren't likely to need five different portraits of the same pop star, nor are we likely to need three pictures of the same flower. Do all of these pictures of the rays show something different? If not, then we really can't justify them all being FPs. If they do, then we really need to ask why we shouldn't feature the one that shows all key features, or wait for a picture that does. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Do all of these pictures of the rays show something different? If not, then we really can't justify them all being FPs. If they do, then we really need to ask why we shouldn't feature the one that shows all key features, or wait for a picture that does." It is what I was trying to explain unsuccessfully so far. A new image has much higher EV mostly because it depicts the rays originating from a different source: the sun, and the sun's reflection. It also has rays going in a different directions from sources. It is very important for understanding crepuscular rays because for example Papa Lima Whiskey 2 believes that there are both kinds of rays "crepuscular and anticrepuscular " are present in this image File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau edit.jpg. That's why I nominated the image that illustrates rays going up and down and originating from a different source to replace the current FP because all rays in this image are crepuscular rays.--GXK147 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to have one of these pictures promoted to FP, that goes in the main section with the rest of the nominations, not the delist section. We can discuss its merits and whether to replace current FPs with this up there. This section is for delist discussions only. Clegs (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The first image is FP, the second one is not. I thought that the way to replace FP image with another one is to nominate it here. Sorry, if I did it in a wrong place. Maybe you could help me to do it in the right place please? --GXK147 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other editors: What is the proper way to go about doing this? Do we nominate his candidate and nom the original for delisting, and link the two? Clegs (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know only new nominations go to FPC. If one is to delist an FP or replace it with a potentially better picture, they are to be listed here. O.J. (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a flaw in the FP process that there is no way around this. What frequently ends up happening is two separate discussions are started, basically asking "which one should we have", and both conclude "this one", often with spurious reasoning about how they both add to the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)