Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Black-faced Woodswallow

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2021 at 14:25:33 (UTC)

Original – Black-faced Woodswallow, Sturt National Park, New South Wales, Australia

Reason: Was seen on Commons FPC last month, where it was featured unanimously.
Articles in which this image appears: Black-faced woodswallow
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Creator: JJ Harrison

Support as nominator – MER-C 14:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheFreeWorld (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Modussiccandi (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great quality but a cropped version is more encyclopedically useful for infobox. (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the crop template if you wish Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basile Morin (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: FYI: the nominated image is currently not used in any article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not Promoted~~ --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is consensus to promote this image, an unused image can’t become a featured picture. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the non-promote close. The uncropped (nom) version was stable following its insertion in the article and prior to this nomination (no objection by article editors). And now after this nomination, there is consensus for it being FP, i.e. Wikipedia's best, for its use in the article (as infobox image). We go by consensus (not by one editor). I put the uncropped version back in the article. Pinging the closing editor @Armbrust: and participants in case they choose to comment: @MER-C, TheFreeWorld, Charlesjsharp, Modussiccandi, Buidhe, and Basile Morin:. Bammesk (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk just reverted use of the cropped version in the article claiming the non-cropped version has consensus. Well, it doesn't. No one in this discussion, besides me, weighed in on which version was better to use in the infobox. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is "weighing in". Bammesk (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 3 examples where participants weighed in on alternate images: [1], [2], [3]. There are many such examples in the archives. Removing a nominated image from its article, and/or modifying it, midstream, is disruptive. Bammesk (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image should present the subject as much detail as possible. Cropping out extraneous areas that aren't the subject increases the amount of detail that can be shown to the average reader, which adds encyclopedic value, regardless of what some editors think about the artistic merit of certain crops. Applying these principles to improve the image used in the infobox is in no way "disruptive". (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to do it without disrupting the nom process. Look at the 3 examples, look at the time lines (the edit histories), look at who replaced the images in the articles, and when. There is a right way. Bammesk (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bammesk I struck the non-promote close for now, but I'm not willing to close this nomination successful until the image remains stable for 7 days. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out @Bammesk: to @Buidhe: that his sabotage of FP noms is poor behaviour (see my current noms). He has not responded. Should we take this to an independent admin for adjudication? @Armbrust: @MER-C: @TheFreeWorld: @Modussiccandi: @Vulphere:? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, our WP:PURPOSE as an encyclopedia is to create content that is useful for readers. Therefore, I focus on improving reader facing content, rather than prioritizing an internal process. If Wikipedia articles can be improved by changing crops, switching images, etc., that should not wait for FPC. This is not "sabotage" of anyone's nominations. (t · c) buidhe 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created content that is less useful for readers who wish to download an image. Changing an image mid FP nomination is sabotage in my opinion as you nullify all previous votes. Do you think your vote is better than everyone else's? Just behave like everyone else and simply oppose the FP nomination please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Black-faced Woodswallow 1 - Sturt National Park.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]