@INeverCry: I do not remember such a case in the past. I understood the idea to promote a good image and this idea is good. But the form does not seem good to me. It would have been preferable to leave this appointment as it stood or to withdraw it. Then put in place the new appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Archaeodontosaurus: My apologies. I'm pretty new here, so it looks like I made a mistake doing it like this. With that said, what's done is done. We've got the proper image nominated now. Do you really want to have an admin delete the redirect, restore the old nomination, withdraw that, and then redo this nomination exactly as it already is? That's a lot of work to get to the same basic result we have now. Why don't we treat this as a learning experience for me, and let the nomination go forward as it is? I understand I made an error in judgement, and I won't do this again. lNeverCry10:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Archaeodontosaurus. The nominator deserves the courtesy of having his picture considered, not substituted by another image in the same thread. Quite recently, we had a similar case with a view of the facade of the Cathedral in Vezelay. Pierre nominated a picture and I argued that a different one was better in the scope, so Pierre withdrew his nomination, I nominated the other image separately, and it was promoted. It's not that arduous to create a new nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
