Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tatev Monastery

Tatev Monastery edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2020 at 19:16:00 (UTC)

Original – Tatev monastery and surroundings, 2016

Alternate – sharper, more detailed image

Reason: Detailed view of Tatev monastery and its surroundings. I am also including a sharper and more detailed alternate by the same photographer.
Articles in which this image appears: Tatev Monastery
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Panorama or other
Creator: Diego Delso

Support as nominator either, prefer Alt – Bammesk (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I prefer the alternate, too, but it's not used on any article and it isn't a panorama. -- Veggies (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veggies, alternates replace originals in articles once they get enough support and become FP. The category (in this case "panorama") is routinely changed by User:Armbrust at the time he closes noms. Bammesk (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's true? Maybe it happens in practice, but it's not part of any written process; and, as the nominated image is specifically captioned "Panoramic view of the monastery and surroundings" in the article, article editors might say that the alt is not a replacement. The alt would arguably be a closer replacement for the infobox image; but might well be disputed there because of the scaffolding and temporary roof (also in the panorama, but not in the infobox image). I'm not sure we can assume that, just because we promote an image, it will be accepted by article editors, where it isn't a clear like-for-like replacement for the current image? TSP (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support original, Oppose alt as ineligible - Both great photos; but I'm unconvinced by this strategy of putting forward a choice of two different images, with the nominator's preference being for the one not currently in an article. If you believe the alt is superior, I suggest you put it in the article, then come back once it's been stable there for at least a week and nominate it. TSP (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the value of allowing the audience at FPC to decide, especially for images used in articles that likely don't receive enough traffic to produce a consensus on the talk page over which image is superior. So if you replaced the image and it stayed for a week, it just means that no one saw it or cared enough to contest it, not that everyone agrees that the replacement is superior. Not sure what the best solution to this dilemma is, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator can put their preferred image in the article, wait a few weeks, then nominate it if no-one objected. If no editors saw it on the article, nothing is lost; but we shouldn't really be making decisions about article content here, away from the editors of those articles. Similar alternatives coming up during the nomination process has been long accepted as part of the process - though if they don't then find a place in an article, they should be nominated for delisting; but I'm uncomfortable with a nomination where the preferred option is an image not in an article. Ultimately, Featured Picture Candidates exists to serve Wikipedia, not vice versa: FPC is here to recognise images that bring value to the encyclopedia, the encyclopedia is not here to display images FPC thinks are beautiful. TSP (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps the nominator can put the new image in the article, and if no one objects, then it represents implicit consent of the community to use either of the two images. Then it would be fair game to have FPC decide IMO, even if the original image is technically no longer used in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]