Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg

Marbled rock crab
Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 16:21:07 (UTC)
 * Reason:Not used in any articles. Marbled rock crab already has a different FP of this species and this photo doesn't really show anything different than the existing one to warrant its inclusion in the article.
 * Articles this image appears in: Pachygrapsus marmoratus
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Marbled rock crab male
 * Nominator: — howcheng  {chat}


 * Delist &mdash; — howcheng  {chat} 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist -- Prefer current infobox image, background is less distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. At nomination time in article was used two pictures (restored now). Also this is a best photo of male marbled rock crab. -- George Chernilevsky  talk 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: how do you tell the difference from above? If one FP is male and the other is female, we definitely need to keep both. Clegs (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Back side of a female almost square, male a bit more triangular -- George Chernilevsky  talk 10:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To my uneducated eyes, they look the same. Others' thoughts? Clegs (talk)
 * I think I see it. The bottom end of the male is slightly more angular. Also, the image has been removed again. — howcheng  {chat} 22:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Twice, but it's always the same editor, and he seems to have a theme about removing relevant images, see . Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. No rule against two of the same species; if they are indeed one of each gender, there's definitely EV. No reason to punish the picture for one user's personal edit war. Clegs (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that by definition, an FP must be included in an article. For me, this is purely a procedural nomination. No article = no star. — howcheng  {chat} 23:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how we should handle nominations where FP/no FP hinges on an edit war where the opposing side consists of a single editor (=potential minority position). That said, George could probably turn this into a non-issue by contributing two short paragraphs of relevant text to the article. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The partial camouflage here brings valuable EV. Nautica Shad es  21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Delisting an unused image is really procedural, and if a home can't be found for it that it has EV for, then it would need delisted and probably no vote is necessary to do it... Although I do see this editor as being maybe edit-warish. Probably wouldn't hurt anything to postpone the delisting for a month and give the article's talk page time to discuss the relevance of having both sexes pictured. That way all interested editors for that article will have plenty of time to weigh in on keeping the image or not and we won't be delisting it over one editors wishes to remove it from the article. So Postpone one month and discuss on article's talk page is my "vote" lol. ;-) — raeky  t  02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs to be clarified in article talk space. But a procedural point: the reason why we insist on a vote even for an obvious delist due to non-usage is precisely to reveal issues like this, in which an image has been removed for less-than-stellar reasons. Chick Bowen 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The reasons given for the removal of the picture from the article are not valid. I have read through all the image guidelines/essays ETC... and I cannot find a valid reason for the removal of the picture from the article. Dusty 777 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't do anything about that here. Get it to stick in the article and we can close this. — howcheng  {chat} 17:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update/Question: I've tried to add it to the article. Removed by User:Stemonitis. Added it again, and tried to discuss with him that consensus is the picture adds value to the article. He replied vehemently, both on my talk and the article talk, that it did not and he did not want it there and removed the picture again. He insists it's not an edit war or WP:OWN, he's just trying to make sure WP has the best content possible and the picture adds nothing so he's not going to let it in the article. Sounds like edit warring and WP:OWN to me. What's the next step? AN/I? Never had to deal with this before. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see this section on the FPC talk page to continue the discussion. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 09:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: (Added after the discussion should have been closed.) Can we stop this discussion here? It's not helping. A reasoned discussion, focussing on the article, not the picture, needs to be had on the article talk page. Once a conslusion has been reached there, we can have this discussion. Here is not the place for a "should it, shouldn't it" concerning whether the image should be in the article- once that has been decided through the proper procedure, this discussion can go ahead, and it will no doubt be a simple one. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

-- No consensus; Keep without prejudice against a renom. There's a discussion on the article's talk page to determine this image's usage on that page; depending on its results I may renom the image for delisting. I'm closing this because it's been sitting for several days; if anyone feels I should have left it open, feel free to revert me. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 07:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)