Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2006

This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024

Retained

Image:Mad scientist.svg

Mad Scientist

I can see the use of this picture and it illustrates the stereotypical idea of a mad scientist, but, in my opinion, is it in anyway up to FD standards. Delist. Sotakeit 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - I do not know of any article where this picture can add any significant information. Even though I have to admit that I'm biased - I'm a scientist myself. Not gone mad (yet), though. --Mikeo 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - captures the subject well and supports articles like mad scientist quite well --Mikeo 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's perfectly appropriate for, and very illustrative of, mad scientist. Its use there obviates the need for a fair-use photo of (say) Dr Frankenstein. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's also in the cartoon article, quite appropriately. It is a bit small, I have notified the artist, User:J.J., let's see if he can provide a larger one. In any case, it's a great graphic, would hate to see it go from FP. --Janke | Talk 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like this one, captures its subject well. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-illustrative, and as big as it needs to be (this isn't the kind of picture where you need to zoom in on specific details). Mark¹ 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I absolutely hate depictions of "mad scientists" for far too many reasons to list here, but my objections are of a personal bias and this image is otherwise satisfactory to remain featured.--Deglr6328 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Bevo 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Too small for a quality print reproduction, but I can't bear to see it go. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason for it to go. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It illustrates the article well, but isn't striking and doesn't actually add much to the article. It isn't "worth a thousand words." Go back and read the first paragraph of this page. Like I said, it's a good illustration for the article, but it doesn't add anything that isn't already there, doesn't make it easier to comprehend or imagine or anything. Twilight Realm 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Could not envision a better realization of a mad scientist. StarryEyes 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't this be an SVG now? - Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good portrayal of a mad scientist - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 12:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP, although an SVG version would perhaps be preferable. Raven4x4x 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Geisha-fullheight.jpg

Women dressed as maiko (apprentice geisha) in Kyoto, Japan

• Since we promoted a real Geisha pic I suggest we delist this one which according to that debate was of fake Geisha. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's small, too. --Janke | Talk 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Rather on the small side. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is still the prevailing picture at Geisha - Bevo 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Delisting it from FP won't change that... --Janke | Talk 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delist, but for size, not authenticity concerns. The caption and image page clearly state that they're only dressed as maiko, as did the debate where it was promoted. —Cryptic (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is still and excellent picture even if it is not of real geisha. Sotakeit 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a good example of what Geisha wore before WWII. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting we remove it from the encyclopedia, just that we don't need it as a featured pic now we have a much more notable geisha pic. I agree this is a good pic, but do you think it is good enough to warrant a second FP on the same subject? ~ Veledan • Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Size is fine. It could use a little work with coloring/contrast, but that's not enough reason for delisting. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-3 05:39
• Keep--Deglr6328 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ^KILO-_LIMA 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP Raven4x4x 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:German_Monopoly_board_in_the_middle_of_a_game.jpg

Monopoly

Not particularly high res and not particularly sharp. Promoted back in 2004, and probably wouldn't make it today. (It's also a picture of the German-language monopoly, not English-language, though that isn't really a problem to me.) Delist. Zafiroblue05 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It does a nice job illustrating the game. I also like the angle of the shot and the white background--Lewk_of_Serthic 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same reasons as Lewk_of_Serthic stated. Angel of the board is attactive and it illustrates the game well. If you could find another image that does a better job that pd, then maybe i'd change my vote. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist it is nice, but I don't think it's FP nice. We need nice images with high quality. gren グレン ^? 09:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I personally wouldn't vote to promote it today but there's no good cause to revoke it's status. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Shows what Monopoly is all about, like angle of board. Anchorage 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No cause to remove. enochlau (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, for the reasons stated above. - Bevo 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Small, pixellated, and very badly aliased (particularly the black lines on green, and the edges of the lowermost cards). —Cryptic (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The fact that it's in German DOES bother me, but it's also small and of poor quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's nice, but not of the quality we currently look for in a featured picture, IMO. Mstroeck 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Given the angle, it couldn't have been any clearer. - JPM | 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Delisting it give the incentive for someone else to go ahead and take a more representative image. And I support delisting because it is in German - we need an English monopoly board for the English wiki. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, Agree with Diliff. --Janke | Talk 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist; should not be featured for the English wikipedia, badly aliased and grainy. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very representative. Glaurung 07:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist German-language ed. less than ideal for English Wikipedia. Don't pass "LOS"; don't collect 200 Deutsche Marks? Also: Where are the dice? Where are the iconic tin player pieces like the thimble and the top hat? -- D.M. ^(talk) 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP Raven4x4x 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wolf spider attack position.jpg

A December 2004 nominee that is no longer up to scratch. It is small in size by today's standards and it was acknowledged at its nomination that it was unfocused due to lack of tripod. Could the first person to agree with my assessment leave the contributor a quick message (User_talk:Fir0002) to ask about the possibility of improving the uploaded version? Thanks. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is good/sharp/large enough to keep, even though it probably wouldn't be chosen as an FP today. IMHO, we cannot adopt the strict standards of today to all old FPs. Also, it's by far the best of all the images on Wolf spider. --Janke | Talk 07:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why not? It is not like the technology for photography was drastically different a year and two months ago. A featured picture is meant to exhibit the best images Wikipedia has to offer. If an image does not do that, then it simply should not be a featured picture. I like this photo, and hope that Fir can sharpen it somewhat, otherwise I vote to delist. --liquidGhoul 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Why not?" Well, should we delist everything less than 1000 px wide, which appears to be the minimum today? Also, as pointed out elsewhere, it's not only image quality that determines FP, but also "adds significantly to an article". I simply think this spider does... but, if Fir can improve the resolution, all the better! --Janke | Talk 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Where have I said that it was about resolution. The problem I have with it is the motion blur. Also, it states in the featured picture critera, that a featured picture "exemplifies Wikipedia's best work", and should be: "useful, accurate and pleasing to the eye". Yes, this picture is useful to the article, but it is not completely accurate, as some features are blurred, and it is not pleasing to my eye because of the motion blur. You can see Wikipedia's best work in featured pictures which don't have obvious technical flaws. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I agree precisely with Janke.--ragesoss 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the spectacularaspects of this picture by far outhweight any other factors. To quote fir0002:I didn't have the benefit of a tripod as I was a considerable distance from home, and did not want to risk losing the oppurtunity. Also, due to the fact that my camera saves to jpeg format and is a little overzealous in compressing the image, the crop of the original photo shows jpeg compression. Circeus 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Janke.–Joke 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Circeus. enochlau (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Additional comment on FP talk page. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist for reasons given in nomination. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 10:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Janke. CapeCodEph 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep best picture on the article and we can't delist every article that isn't 100px by 1000px just because size recommendations for current FP's change. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it'll be a while before this photo is beaten. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Janke and others DaGizza^{Chat ©} 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as Featured Picture. Raven4x4x 06:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Notre dame-paris-view.jpg

Paris from Notre-Dame

I know most (or all) people liked this image in mid 2004, but FP standards have changed. This image is too small to make out much detail, and the gargoyle is sort of distracting. The size is the main problem, I think. There are much more impressive FP cityscapes these days. Therefore, I say Unfeaturify Snargle 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - until we get a new FP of the same subject. It is possible - camera a little lower, so the gargoyle doesn't "eat" the city, etc. But no need to delist this, yet. --Janke | Talk 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep just because standards have changed in no way makes this an invalid feature picture. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep striking. -Ravedave 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Good shot but way too small... no way this image would make it today just based on the size alone. Procrastinator-General 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. And I think it absolutely is nescessary to apply current standards to earlier nominations in order to keep up the quality of the Featured Picture collection. Also the gargyle is a bit dark. --Dschwen 07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very nice picture, even if a little bit too small. Until we get the same view at a higher resolution, there is no need to delist. -Glaurung 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But FP is not designed as a comprehensive library of all beautiful views, it should show the best pictures on Wikipedia. --Dschwen 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do agree with you. However, this picture was promoted to the featured status. Usually, when you get a promotion (or more generally when you pass an exam), it is definitive. For example, you wouldn't be very happy if your University was to reclaim your academic diploma on the ground that criteria have changed for the exam you took years ago. On the other hand, it is true that there are some kind of promotions for which you regularly have to prove that you still meet the criteria, and FP could work like this. But in that case, we would have to systematically go through all currently featured picture to see if they still stand to the actual standard or not. If this is done, I would probably vote to delist this picture. But if it is listed alone as it is now, I don't see any reason why I would vote to delist when pictures such as [1] or [2] can sleep in peace. And before listing a small picture for a possible delisting, maybe we should ask the uploader if he can provide a larger version of the picture? -- Glaurung 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you opposing the delisting of FPs in general? I don't quite see the parallel between a university degree and a FP on wikipedia though... --Dschwen 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • No I am not, but I think that, in case size is the main concern for a delisting, one should warn the uploader or nominator and ask him if he can provide a higher resolution version (which you did, thank you.). This should be the task of whomever nominates the picture for delisting. I will update the delisting rules accordingly. Glaurung 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. We have to apply current standards even to older FPs. Too small. Mikeo 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above standards. Not only is it small, but the actual view of Paris is also a bit too much out of focus. BigBlueFish 11:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nice picture--Ph89 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its a nice picture. Pity about the size, but its a good shot of the city and it's arcitecture - • The Giant Puffin • 16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Neutrality^talk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist This is why I hate the delisting process. It seems that people are completely against delisting photos. I have absolutely no idea why, it is not a personal thing. If a photo does not meet the requirements any more, then it is not of featured picture quality. Also, the nominator didn't inform the original contributor of the photo that the photo is up for delisting. If the main problem can be easily fixable (like small resolution can be), then tell the original contributor!! What is hard about that? Dschwen ended up doing it, and I am glad he did, but it was not up to him. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, it would not pass if it was proposed today, not just because of the size either. |→ Spaully°τ 16:49, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
• Keep. It's too small, but makes up for it through a breathtaking composition. WOnderful use of the gargoyle. A higher-res picture will be very good, though. Loom91 09:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's nice enough, but it wouldn't make FP status if it was submitted in the current climate. A better photo of the same general concept might work though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture Since there wasn't a consensus either way, it will remain as a FP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Starlette

Starlette

Maybe I just don't appreciate the image, but it seems like it wouldn't pass today. The image appears grainy to me and out of focus in some places. Delist. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Reason: it adds little to the articles it appears in - photojournalism‚ Cannes Film Festival, and news media - and it is a bit soft. --Janke | Talk 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Maybe I miss the point, but the subject is cut off.say1988 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  As it is used in photojournalism, the subject is the photographers. ed g2s • talk 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it was only promoted a year ago with +14/-2. ed g2s • talk 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per ed g2s and the fact that it should not be delisted purely for subjective reasoning behind which articles it is in. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• This wasn't promoted that long ago and as I recall it was promoted by a large margin. Its a good picture. (Keep) BrokenSegue 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no reason to delist this – I think that it adds something to all of the articles it's placed in and that it looks overall professional. The graininess doesn't bother me, maybe because it's a couple of decades older than most FPCs. –Gustavb 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good picture, I think it adds to the photographer related articles -Ravedave 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No compelling reasons to delist. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like the composition, although the photographers are slightly out of focus. --Dschwen 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I admit to a sentimental bias: this was one of the first pictures that hooked me on Featured pictures when it was on WP:POTD last August. I admit the technical defects but I think it's striking and attractive and I'd hate to see it delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its a unique picture; I see no justifiable reason to delist it. As for the "soft" comment, Wikipedia is not censored. TomStar81 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Soft" meant "not sharp", not "softcore". Janke knows we're not censored. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed... ;-) This isn't even softcore... (Nor was the recent nude study, IMHO. - FWIW, I'm not against softcore on WP, if tasteful, but would oppose hardcore.) I voted delist because I think there might be better images to illustrate the articles this one appears in. --Janke | Talk 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. enochlau (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pu'u 'Ō'ō

It's today's (12 April 2006) picture of the day. It doesn't appear explicitly in the Pu'u 'Ō'ō article.. a cropped version does. Thus it either needs to be placed in the article or delisted, per the requirements. Also, it's quite low resolution and a bit blurry.. would never pass today. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd vote for it if it was nominated due to the subject. But I do think the cropped version is better. Is there any precedent for transferring the FP status if the consensus is to keep, or would we have to re-nominate the cropped version? |→ Spaully°τ 23:47, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
• Delist: it's a bit fuzzy, I agree that it probably wouldn't pass in today's world. --Hetar 07:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its a very striking image. -Ravedave 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is hard to get such a good caption of an erupting volcano. It is a very good illustration. There is currently no better image available. Mikeo 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, good even though small. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Powerful, hard-to-reproduce image. Cropped version works best for Pu'u 'Ō'ō article, but perhaps full version could be included in Volcano article? -Fadookie ^Talk 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ph physical map.png

Ph physical map.png

It's just a map. Nominated back in 2003 and promoted (finally) in March 2004 before the FPC process had been formalised. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep In my opinion the map is very useful and adds great value to the articles it appears in (probably moreso than half the images on this page). It is clear and very detailed. Most importantly, it was created by a Wikipedian and I think such work should be supported if possible. NepGrower 08:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice it had been created by a wikipedian - I'll go and ask if s/he has a larger version or even a svg. If we do end up delisting this though, remember I'm only suggesting it be delisted from FP, not removed from the encyclopedia (where it's obviously very useful) ~ Veledan • Talk 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not too bad, but small. Try and wait until we hear back from the creator if they perhaps have a larger version, but if not, I'm afraid I'd say delist as well. Tis a shame, though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, I'm the creator of the image and thankfully I still have the source images in Adobe PSD (I thought I lost everything when one of my hard drives crashed). Unfortunately, the topographic data is bitmap, so I can't convert the image to a vector format like SVG. If your concern is that it is too small or untranslateable, I can create a larger version and a blank version. I can only do it in May though, since I'm quite busy at the moment. If creating larger version is acceptable, I need a good guesstimate on the image resolution (I think A4 paper size at 300 dpi is good enough, suitable for printing?). Note though that this map is meant to show an overview of the physical geography of the Philippines so I won't likely put more labels than is necessary. Thanks! --seav 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • All I want is a bigger version (in fact, I would vote keep even if you hadn't offered a bigger version), SVG isn't necessary. BrokenSegue 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a wikipedian MADE that. Thats badass. -Ravedave 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is very illustrative, thanks again for this good map. Mikeo 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 100% encyclopedic. Bigger would indeed be better - I suggest Seav overwrites the old one with a larger version, at his leisure. --Janke | Talk 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, please upload bigger over the old one. Blank version would indeed be awesome too! --Dschwen 10:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bigger would be better (blank too for other wikipedias.) More articles deserve a map like this. -Fadookie ^Talk 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw because a larger version is to be provided (and per clear consensus) ~ Veledan • Talk 15:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Circlestrafing.png

Circlestrafing.png

SVG version

Animated GIF

It might be illustrative for the subject it explains, but I don't think it's good enough to be a FP. It has been a candidate for delisting once before, in November 2004, and the votes were 3/6. –Gustavb 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd make an SVG of it, but only if everyone promises not to go all "oppose, not a macro shot of an insect"... err, "not striking", of course. Just kidding, I think I'll make one anyway. ;) (might take a while, though) -- grm_wnr Esc 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an SVG. Do you know of a good tutorial for making SVGs out of Gifs? I tried making one for a gerotor but failed pretty bad. My lines turned out pretty crappy. I looked at the inkscape tutorial and it showed the automated one, but not what to do if the results sucked. -Ravedave 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time this was nominated people suggested making an animated version, anyone wants to take up that challenge? SVG sounds good though... Neutral for now. BrokenSegue 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Once there is an SVG I will make an animated version. -Ravedave 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote to delist this one and replace it with an animated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's see what Ravedave will provide. The presentation needs to be clearer than this. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we move this to the "Suspended Promotions" section because it seems we all would just like this changed to a better or animated version.--Jonthecheet 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

SVG version is finished, see right. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I made an animated GIF as well, just because I always wanted to do that. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bit fast? BrokenSegue 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's slower now... -- grm_wnr Esc 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

... but still quite jerky. Any chance of doubling the number of images? Then it would be much smoother, and even slower. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea with the animations, but it doesnt properly convey the theory behind circle strafing. The guy in the center doesnt moveusually the guy you are circling tries to shoot at you, but can't keep the same rhythm as the strafer.--Chris 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the center person should be rotating to the left as well, just not keeping up with the outside guy?-Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added my version, which is not complete. The last animation is not correct, it's missing part of the circle. Also I need to slow it down. Any other comments? Which style do people like better? What do you guys want to see in an anim? -Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've overwritten my version with a new one that tries to adress above points - Clear your caches to see it. (for reference: old version) -- grm_wnr Esc 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, I'd say demote the current version and promote the svg and this animation. BrokenSegue 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• The animation looks great (with inner person moving). What now? Does this have to go through the featured pictures candiates again?--Jonthecheet 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Delist the old still picture, and nominate the first of the animations for FPC. Be sure it's been in the article for a while, though... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist original. I've removed the 'on hold, don't vote' notice from the top as the animated versions and the svg are here now. I vote delist original and nominate gnm_wnr's animation independently. Good job on the svg version, but I wouldn't support it over the improved animation and I don't think we need 2 ~ Veledan • Talk 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The original is made obsolete by an animated version of the SVG. Send animated one for FPC (which ever animated one we end up selecting). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't like the animated versions at all. For starters, the characters are moving around the same speed as their bullets. If this was the case, the strafer could never hit his target - his bullets would always miss to the right. And as a spectator, it's really hard to make sense of all the bullets flying around. A good picture should try and break down and synthesise the situation - the nice static SVG does this better. I would probably remove the red guy's bullets though - remember the picture is about about the blue guy shooting. As soon as they're both shooting, the picture represents some sort of combat, instead of a simple shooting/moving technique. You could even replace the red guy with some symbolic "target" to make it even clearer. Stevage 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the SVG version with the red guy shooting back. The whole point of circlestrafing is to avoid return fire, after all. making it not "combat" would be rather silly. Night Gyr 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, there is no sideway momentum from moving in a circle imparted on the bullet. So they will hit. Would making the blue guys bullets all different colors help? (I also removed my crappy anm)-Ravedave 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is sideway momentum, in real life it would be negligible compared to the bullets forward momentum. --Dschwen 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but in the animation it looks very odd because the shooter and the bullet are moving at much the same speed. The animation needs to be slowed down a bit. --Surgeonsmate 03:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For me personally, the non-animated version makes it a lot clearer what is being depicted, perhaps because the animation has many things moving in different directions at the same time. Just my $0.02. Mike1024 (t/c) 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The nominated image was kept as the .svg version produced during this nomination. Ravedave withdrew his animation. Grm_wnr's animation had support and should probably be nominated independently ~ Veledan • Talk 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Han Civilization

This is an excellent image, but it suffers from a POV. The map shows the claimed contemporary borders of China. In other words, it has a pro-China bias. (China and India dispute large tracts of territory – See FP Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg how this is depicted). I've gone through a long debate with the author on the image talk page, but nothing fruitful has materialised. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as quoted by Jimbo Wales, this policy is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. A featured map cannot be biased. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In my opinion, the mention in the legend that the borders are "claimed" sufficiently addresses your objection. Changing anything further would constitute needless clutter and reduce the value of the image. Considering that people will use this map to learn about the extent of the Han civilisation and the modern borders are purely for comparison, I would say that the map is not really asserting anything about the modern borders and can't be accused of POV. Not to mention, the disputed borders don't even come very close to the Han civilisation borders, so it's very unlikely anyone will come away with a biased view of the extent of modern China after examining this map. Redquark 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  So we're negotiating policy? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  No, I'm saying the map is NPOV as it stands, because your objection lies outside the substantive content it communicates. Redquark 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  Why show a single country's viewpoint? Isn't that a bias? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  It's a historical map. You have to show someone's viewpoint; otherwise you won't be able to place the locations in a modern context. Because it says "Border claimed by PR China" rather than just "Border of China", it's at least trying to be neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-19 15:11

• Keep. Key point it shows "Border claimed by P. R. China" and says so itself. If it said "Border of PRC" I suppose I could agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say1988 (talk • contribs)
• Keep The claimed note keeps it from being true POV, and the reason for including it at all is to create a reference for the average viewer (some general idea of the Han borders in comparison to modern China that they might be more familiar with). Definetly keep as it is neither POV, nor is that claimed POV the subject of the map. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Bad faith and superfluous nomination. It is a very minor issue, and I don't think the issue even exists with the current justification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a non-issue. As was mentioned above (and is, by the way, quite obvious), the image itself notes that the borders are "claimed" by the PRC and therefore qualifies the POV as not originating with the artist or Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just keep on meddling in politically biased stuff, to make Wikipedia unpopular together sooner. Kokot.kokotisko 10:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Randy Johnston (‽) 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above and the fact that at FPC it does not matter if a picture can be considered POV, it's use in articles is what would be the issue and that should be taken up there not here. As long as it has a legitimate use on a single article it qualifies at least under that criteria. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Joe I 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The word "claimed" rids me of all doubt. Political Mind 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained as Featured Picture Raven4x4x 06:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Epicyclic Gear Ratios

Epicyclic Gear Ratios

Too low res

• Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• The creator of this diagram is still an active wikipedian, and there is nothing on his talk page about this so I reckon the nomination for delisting is premature. I've left him a message asking whether he can provide an svg or at least a larger version ~ Veledan • Talk 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until the creator can provide a high-res version (which should be very easy to do, if he still has the files saved). I've sent him an email as well. --BRIAN0918 22:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Imagine an animated version of this one! Though you would need way too many frames since the outer point moves slower. oh well --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 05:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Make it rock back and forth... or at least adjust the ratios so that one revolution of the slow gear is an interger number of rotations of the faster gear. --Gmaxwell 10:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• put it together to rock back and forth --Astrokey44 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, although it would be nice with a few more steps. Since the creator hasn't responded I suggest we just replace the image. Anyone know blender? There is a gear module here which looks like it will do all that we need. --Gmaxwell 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Bevo 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Increase the number of frames for smoother motion. deeptrivia (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment2': Title should be "Epicyclic gear train". deeptrivia (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've uploaded a higher-resolution version. If anyone else wants the .blend file to play with (it's set up for animation already), email me. -- Wapcaplet 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Retained as Featured Picture Raven4x4x 06:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Skyline

Chicago Skyline at Sunset

User:Childzy approached me to nominate this pic for deletion as he didn't know how.

• Neutral --Fir0002 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Blurry/grainy not a high enough resolution--Childzy _talk ^contribs 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist It is a good shot, but it is grainy and poort resolustion. Political mind 21:06, 30 April 2024 UTC [refresh]
• Delist - It's a bit grainy and not enormously special, but I think that the two people who voted to delist on resolution have got a bit mixed up - the picture is definitely large enough, at 5510x809! That's on the large side even for a panorama. Maybe they're forgetting that the version on the image page is scaled down - remember that you have to click on the image agin on it's description page to see the full-size version. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment- i know how big it is (i can open a pic) i thought resolution was the picture quality, which the pic is lacking --Childzy _talk ^contribs 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not. Image resolution, to be honest. This is an encyclopedia, there's no excuse for not knowing what something is when there's a search bar less than two feet away... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Get over it Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. To be honest this is probably the nicest pic of Chicago I've ever seen, even if quality is not quite perfect. --jjron 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like the contrast between city and clouds/water. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:13

• Keep. --Vircabutar 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained as featured picture Raven4x4x 09:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pangong Lake

File:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg

Pangong lake by martinl.jpg

File:Pangong faults.png

The faults, spelled out and enlarged. (Click to view full-size image.) To prevent the irony of showing JPEG artifacts with a JPEG image, I've uploaded it as a PNG.

Too small, artifacting, bad quality, vignetting, inappropriate filename.

To outline some of the problems with the picture, I've added this extra one.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist too small Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Besides the problems already mentioned, it's oversharpened. -- moondigger 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. The image of Pangong lake is one of the best photographs in the featured pictures listing. Superb quality and imagery, balance, and view location. Instead of finding the best of what is already featured and attempting to delist them, you should find the worst of the candidates and make sure they are not accepted. Are alterior motives at stake?. AJ24 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But look at the waves nearest to the camera where they break, look at the top left corner - the quality is rubbish! I must contest 'superb quality and imagery', on those grounds at least. Look at the JPEG artifacting around the clouds. It's not even stunning! It's a lake, some large hills and a deep blue sky - I've been on this Earth only 15 years and I've seen better sights than that with my own eyes. How does it educate the viewer? I couldn't even tell what country that was in, or even what continent. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The quality is "rubbish"? Watch your language please. Someone contributed that and to characterize aspects of it as "rubbish" is highly questionable. Stick to your argument -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The shaded areas of the photograph in no way diminish the subject, Pangong Lake. Also, I would like to remind you that under FPC we are to judge the photograph itself, not the medium. (Ref: "It's a lake, some large hills and a deep blue sky"). No photograph is perfect, but there are those that come extremely close to that point and they become featured pictures like the photo of Pangong Lake. Also, the image is linked to its article, with more than adequate information on the lake and it's history. -- AJ24 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Its horrible how many photos in the FP list are the worst things I have ever seen. How do I nominate a delisting for other photos in the FP status? -- AJ24 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per AJ24. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't believe anybody would make the claim that this image represents superb quality and imagery. It's almost a textbook example of what can go wrong in an image. Contrast and saturation are pumped to blatantly unnatural levels, leaving the two most prominent clouds posterized and the sky an artificial shade of blue that doesn't resemble any sky I've ever seen in reality. The border in the water between the shadowed area and the sunlit area is haloed due to overaggressive contrast/sharpening. The oversharpening also gives the foreground water a crackled appearance, and contributes to the prominence of JPEG artifacts. The vignetting is severe, blatantly visible even in a tiny thumbnail. This image would be roundly criticized on any photographer's forum I've ever participated on. -- moondigger 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you there, if the photo was placed among a lineup of pulitzer prize winners, then im guessing it would be laughed at. But in comparison to the so many "FPC-wrong" photos in the Featured Pictures listings, and the cheap photos we review here, its a spectacle. Even though the actual location is obviously far better than the photograph, there is only one corner with a blackened edge (top left). The top right corner is partially shadowed, and as for the other two it is unnoticable and a natural shadowing. If you were trying to prove the point that the photo is not perfect, then you were successful... but if you were suggesting it be delisted, then you most certainly will not see the consensus needed to delist. Thank you. -- AJ24 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It certainly wouldn't take a Pulitzer Prize photograph to put this one to shame. Besides all the problems I listed previously, portions of the clouds are totally blown out. The vignetting you are trying to defend as "shadows" are nothing of the sort -- it's severe vignetting, probably caused by the use of stacked filters on the front of the lens or a lens shade too long for the lens used. You didn't even try to defend the hideous oversaturation/oversharpening/excessive contrast. This may not gather enough opposition to be delisted, but it should be. How can anybody defend the fake colors in this image, much less all the other problems? -- moondigger 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It is exactly like the image of the deer in wildfire that was also nominated for delisting, the rarety, significance, and beauty of the image overrides the unnoticable faults. Because at first I did thoroughly scrutinize the image and at first and second and third glance they are very unnoticable. Instead of automatically searching out for any and all errors in the image, you should judge the photograph for the sometimes intrinsic value that exists there. Furthermore, I do not see a consensus for delisting. Thank You. -- AJ24 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I thought the wildfire image should be delisted as well, but didn't feel as strongly about it as I do about this one. The wildfire image is rare and significant -- this image is neither. And it's far from beautiful in my opinion. I am not giving this image any greater scrutiny than any other -- the faults are obvious and distracting to me. By my count (see below) there are nine problems here, one or two of which were enough to sink several FP nominations in the time I've been here. Surely nine problems is enough to delist this one. As for consensus, at the moment this one is borderline. -- moondigger 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There are currently four users who have voted to keep the image in FP status. Consequently, there is not a consensus to delist. It is not "borderline". Concerning the elk fire image, there are large white circles at the bottom of the picture, it is blurred, and in some parts grainy. While Pangong lake image has severe vignetting, the errors are no way near as obvious as the discretions on Elk Fire. I disagree with you when you say that you are not scrutinizing this image more than any other. As you have made many, many comments and even a diagram in hopes of delisting. None of which you exhibited in the Elk Fire image. Please do not say the image is not significant or historical, as it is a cultural icon of both Northern India and Tibet. Yours was an inapropriate comment. -- AJ24 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • It is well-established that we treat a 2/3 majority as consensus here, while taking the comments people make into account. At the moment the count is +3.5/-6, which is short of a 2/3 majority but very much 'borderline.' Bringing up the faults with the wildfire image is irrelevant to this one... that one has a clear consensus (if we were to end voting now) to keep. I have not scrutinized this image any more than any other. I have made many comments because there have been many responses. That is how discussion works. I did NOT make a diagram of the faults -- that was made by somebody else. I do not believe the image is significant because a better image of the same lake appears in the article, and it is not historical for obvious reasons -- it doesn't depict history. Furthermore you act as if it would be impossible to obtain another, better image of Pangong Lake, which is clearly not the case. There are Wikipedians contributing from all over the world. Until a better image is uploaded, this one can remain in the article. Regardless, it can be in the article without being featured. -- moondigger 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Firstly, concensus is not a majority vote, it depends upon the comments of those in the discussion. At the moment, I would say that it is borderline on the fact that nine problems have been pointed out. The reason this is not significant enough to ignore the problems, is that it is not impossible for others to photograph it. Pangong Tso has another picture on it, of much better quality, and even though it isn't FP quality, it proves that there is no need for promoting this image based soley upon its significance. Secondly, please read Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. It fails five criteria! It is not of high quality, as pointed out by many here. It is not of a high resolution, as it is below 1000px on any side. It is not Wikipedia's best work, compare with these landscape shots: 1, 2, and 3. Not to mention that it is also not Wikipedia's best work because there is a higher quality photo of the same lake in the article in which it is illustrating. Finally, it is not accurate, as the colours are not accurate. It is a pretty clear cut example of what doesn't make a featured picture. --liquidGhoul 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Just for the record, anyone with eyes and access to a history page would see that I made the second image outlining the faults. I completely agree with everything that Moondigger and liquidGhoul have said on this page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with everything moondigger says, it's extremely oversaturated with excessive vignetting (black, not darker.) I would strongly support keeping it if these attributes were fixed, but the fact that the corners are black makes me suspect that this isn't possible. -- Marumari 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Anything with vignetting like that should not be a FP, it makes it look terrible. Also, how can the top right be natural shadow? It is in the sky! AJ24, can you please give examples of the "FPC-wrong photos in the Featured Pictures listings" please? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Discussion Page. Thank you. -- AJ24 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist too small--Vircabutar 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Small, oversaturated (looks like one of those picture you can see in a travel agent's brochure), severe vignetting, though this last point could be corrected by cropping the picture. Glaurung 06:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep despite the quality issues that have been pointed out unless you are looking at the image at 200% you won't even notice the issues, it is also still meets the criteria for an FPC. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The (1)fake color, (2)excessive contrast, (3)vignetting, (4)blown highlights, (5)posterization and (6)haloed border between shadow and sunlit water are all visible in in the tiny thumbnail on this page. The other problems -- (7)oversharpening ('crinkled' water) and (8)JPEG compression artifacts -- are clearly visible at 100% magnification. (200% is not required to see them.) Not to mention that problems 1-6 are not only visible but prominent at 100%. Finally, it falls well short on the (9)resolution requirement, criterion #2 in the featured pictures criteria -- so I'm not sure how anybody could think it meets the requirements for FPC.-- moondigger 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you on severity of several of thsese points and the effect that they have on the image's suitability as a featured picture, I have taken a second look at the picture looking for what you pointed out and though I do see what you mean I disagree on it being delisted, I have however changed to weak keep. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Commentfor the record image size is 800 x 536 px. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not enough problems to warrant delisting. --Fir0002 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nine isn't enough, including five that violate the FP criteria? That isn't the Fir that I remember from the past few months. Don't let the controversy get to you... ;^) -- moondigger 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • • You're damn right it's not. It's a seriously disguted Fir0002 --Fir0002 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand. Nobody has personally attacked you or anything. What are you disgusted about? --liquidGhoul 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, a few people have made personal attacks on Fir recently, accusing him of ulterior motives. We're supposed to judge the image, not the person -- whether an FPC or a delist nomination. People need to act like adults and not like vindictive children. That sentiment applies to everybody, Fir included. His support of this particular image now is odd given his opposition to it during the original FP candidacy. Whether he's been treated unfairly or not, he should be fair in his analyses and not vote simply to oppose people he's angry with. -- moondigger 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I completely agree, but I was just asking out of concern, he seems pretty angry. I also suggest that you, Fir, take a short wikibreak. I feel that you are currently violating WP:POINT, and it is very out of character for you to do such. --liquidGhoul 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Umm hello? If this was some childish sulk don't you think I would be voting "delist" to oppose AJ24's position? Has no one else noticed this? But your advice LiquidGhoul is good, but I"m thinking more in terms of permanently leaving. This used to be such an enjoyable experience and community ... --Fir0002 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Don't leave. These things happen all the time, in that something occurs to upset people, and it blows up. It will return back to normal, and that's probably the best time for you to come back. Once these delistings have died, and the discussions have fizzled, FPC will be a better place again. --liquidGhoul 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fair enough... it just seemed odd that you would support an image now that you opposed when it was first nominated for FP status. I figured it was just a general reaction to the numerous delist nominations that came up, including some of your images. I'll back off now. Stick around... before long this place should return to some semblance of normality. -- moondigger 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • Also, you were one of the few that opposed the original nomination... You are (of course) welcome to change your mind, but I think you're letting the other delist nominations get to you. -- moondigger 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Take a comparable photo yourself or stop bickering. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For somebody to take a comparable photo they'd have to purposefully stack filters on the front of their lens and then go way overboard on the post-processing. I don't think that's the goal here. -- moondigger 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about Ghirla? --liquidGhoul 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think some of you are over-reacting about the quality. Rubbish? Far from beautiful? We can't be looking at the same picture. It may not be worth a million dollars, but this picture is still pretty nice. -- joturner 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am equally baffled that anybody could refer to it as "pretty nice." Seriously. I have nothing against this photographer; I wasn't even around for the original FPC nomination. But from when I first saw the thumbnail I thought it was shoddy and fake looking. -- moondigger 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • @Moondigger - that's why I nominated it... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Shreshth91 -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist because of vignetting, compression problems, resolution, graininess. It's not rubbish--it's actually rather fetching. But it's a bad photograph and I think on this image that outweighs its charm. And... there are no ulterior motives. Assume good faith and all that jazz. This is FPC I came here to avoid confrontation. Let's keep it a happy place full of nice images. gren グレン 06:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Paranoia. It's got to the point where I won't even upload a photo if I can find a blown-out highlight. Not good. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The vignetting in the top-left ruins it for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Viva La Vie Boheme 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - those faults are *petty*. The blown out highlights aren't a problem - they're small, and hidden in the middle of a cloud. The JPEG compression artefacts aren't a major problem. The vignetting is a question of style. I'm not a fan of the oversharpening, but really, this image isn't that bad. I don't like it, but it doesn't violate anything badly enough to be delisted. Stevage 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Phew, quite a fiesty response for this one. I do feel that, aside from the technical faults, it just isn't an outstanding photo. It isn't well framed and the subject, while pretty, isn't that outstanding. I do feel like if it were nominated now, it would fail. It seems like people are defending some of these pictures simply because they're already reached FPC rather than because they believe they deserve to be there. Just the vibe I get. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AJ24 -- Lost 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delist. Going through the image in detail, I see the following:
  1. The image was cropped from top and bottom, and possibly from left and right also.
  2. The image was sharpened.
  • All these wouldn't have caused much problem if the editor has used a good quality editing software. All the errors pointed out, IMO, are a result of poor editing, which also reduced the resolution depth of the image. I am pretty sure if the editor crops the original image again (to remove the vignetting parts), the image would qualify for FP. Having said that, I find the image "stunning", which makes me weak. I wouldn't have found problems with it unless I wanted to find them. Finally, I don't think any FPC criteria mentions that the image should show what country it is in. Image can be renamed (by re-uploading). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained - big arguments for either side = no hope of consensus. Raven4x4x 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Penguins

Emperor penguins.jpg

Too small, slight artifacting. Not stunning, does not illustrate WP's best work.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small, blown highlights. Something more encyclopedic would show an entire penguin. -- moondigger 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I actually think it's perfect for the taxobox image. Could be higher resolution... but I think it more than passes. gren グレン 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfect illustration of Antarctica on a sunny day, besides the penguin merits. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rather good for such a hard to obtain image. Ian¹³/t 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Vircabutar 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per Moondigger, but main problem is that it doesn't show whole penguin. Appreciate validity of keep arguments given though. --jjron 10:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Its nice, but not exceptional. There must be much better images than this. -- AJ24 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Elk Fire

Deerfire.jpg - it has been suggested that they are not deer at all, but elk.

Too small, awful quality, does not illustrate Wikipedia's best work, possibly incorrect/misleading filename.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep other than the filename there is nothing wrong with the picture. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't you see all the artifacting? The blocky squares all over, and the bad quality? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, Per Vanderdecken Imaninjapirate 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I was thinking about nominating this one myself. Appears to have been crudely upsampled, perhaps to meet FP resolution guidelines. -- moondigger 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Have any of you guys actually been in a wildfire? This is an amazing photo. --Fir0002 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We're not nominating it for deletion here, only to be taken out of featured status. Much as the subject may be stunning, the photo definitely is not. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per above. Dionyseus 06:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is a stunning image even if it is not perfect. Thue | talk 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Above. AJ24 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Would this make any difference to any of the previous votes? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm... Why would it make a difference?? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:08
  • Haha you really want this photo delisted what next...... Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, what does that page say that would change opinions here? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:48
• Keep. Excellent scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:06
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's good enough for a 2 page spread in Time Magazine as part of its "Photos of the Year" series [3], it's probably good enough for FP. Also, great example of Forest Service PD photos as a resource. -Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yesterday, I tried to see if I could find a better-quality version of the picture, but the one we have seems to be the original one (i.e. best quality). I admit that the quality is far from perfect, but the cicumstances in which the picture was taken must be taken into account. --Glaurung 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Cribananda 07:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Matthewcieplak. The quality is not exceptional, but the subject matter and composition should be enough to keep this as a featured picture. File quality is important, but it's not everything. Tokugawapants 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Joe I 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's very sad that an image like that could be somewhat beautiful--Vircabutar 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, another image (in my opinion) where the scene trumps the image quality issues. If we had any good alternative I'd be happy to delist. gren グレン 02:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, I think the quality is really too bad for FP standard. --Daĉjo^почта 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's a fantastic and awe-inspiring image... unfortunately the technical flaws make it unsuitable for FP status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep. say1988 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once in a many many lifetime shot. -Ravedave 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delist Incredible shot, very lucky to get. But it just did not turn out with the quality that is needed. Excellent subject, too much low light noise, and way too much compression artifacts. Pity. HighInBC 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a great shot. I'll see the burning forest through the technical trees. --Bagginz 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 07:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thunder Cloud

Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg

Edit 1, by Fir0002. Downsampled/cleaned up LiquidGhoul's link

Too small, lots of artifacting in the sky, interesting but not unreproducible, doesn't even have an {{FPC}} tag on the image page..

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. -- moondigger 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've always loved this photo despite the size --Fir0002 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral it is too small but dont agree on the unreproducible, it looks to be incrediably well formed Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Although a few clouds in the middle left of the image are somewhat blurred, the overall image is astounding. Amazing cloud formation. The remainer of photo is of FPC quality. -- AJ24 17:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:05
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist too small, artifacts --Glaurung 06:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Cribananda 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Size and artifacting is the only really valid (as far as the criteria for a FP are concerned) issue with the image , the fact that it's unreproduceable doesn't mean anything since many FP's are situations that are unreproduceable and somebody put a {{FP}} tag on the image page, which you can do yourself in the future if you want. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a very nice photo with exception of being slightly on the small side I feel it should be a FP, as far as being reproducable, it may be, but it would be hard to do. PPGMD 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is another version, but it has a lot of problems. --liquidGhoul 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I could support an edited version of the shot LiquidGhoul found, but both it and Edit 1 have an unnatural color cast that should be cleaned up. Also it could use some careful sharpening. I could give it a try later today, if nobody else does. -- moondigger 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I do not support Edit 1. The Edit 1 image looks unauthentic and pinkish. -- AJ24 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I oppose color editing of this photo, if it looked pink when taken, let it stay that way. -Ravedave 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Great pic despite the size. --jjron 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 07:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon_horse

Animated Horse

This is a good depiction of a horse in full trot, but the shape, figure, and details of the horse are of the quality of a Scooby Doo cartoon at best (especially the head). Poor depiction and quality. This should never have been on FP.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This one has been nominated for delisting in the recent past... see Animated Horse nomination for delisting. Animations are judged by different criteria than still photos. I'm undecided on this particular image. -- moondigger 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The horse is galloping, not troting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that very needed information. -- AJ24 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if the italics are meant to indicate sarcasm; if so, (a) please be civil and (b) because the animation is rotoscoped from Muybridge's famous photos of a galloping horse, it is entirely relevant that it's galloping; any editors unaware of the fact may not have grasped the point of the animation. If the italics were merely for emphasis, I apologise, but the online medium makes misunderstandings very easy. TSP 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist--Vircabutar 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's an illustration of cartoon animation; being cartoony is perfectly fine for that. --Davepape 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - from talk pages & contribution histories, I see no evidence of the image contributors being notified of these many recent delist proposals. Glaurung recently highlighted the instructions in this section, but apparently to no avail. Not informing the contributors is impolite, and in some cases below, where the main complaints are "too small / jpeg artifacts", the person may very well have a better copy available. --Davepape 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a very good animation, and since it illustrates cartoon, that makes it more suitable for FP. The illustrators who created Scooby Doo get paid a good amount, and the fact that we have someone who created this commercial quality animation (as Scooby is extremely succesful commerically) for free illustrates Wikipedia's best work perfectly. --liquidGhoul 02:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As the creator of this cartoon (yes, I make my living as an animator), I recuse myself from the voting, but I want to thank LiquidGhould for those thoughtful comments. Making an animated cartoon - even as short and simple as this one - takes many hours of work. Of course, to illustrate animated cartoon, you do need something goofy looking! Due to copyright constraints, you cannot illustrate any animation article with commercial characters. Please also note that all articles about animation were totally devoid of moving examples before I uploaded this (oh, except for a bouncing ball... ;-) Greetings, --Janke | Talk 04:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Fir0002 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent animation based on Eadweard Muybridge's pictures --Glaurung 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cartoons should not be judged on detail and quality. This illustrates cartoon animation very well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This image was already nominated for delisting recently. You can't just keep nominating it for delisting until you get your way. It illustrates the subject well, and is user-created, which we encourage. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:20
• Keep. I'm drawn to the motion of the horse's legs, which was the whole point, after all. Any chance a slow-motion version could be made available? -- moondigger 02:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't think they were going for realism on this one. gren グレン 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's supposed to be cartoony. It shows the motion of galloping excellently. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This one has been done to death. Regardless of what anyone else might wish, this image is staying featured, check it's track-record. Also, I think we need to institute some sort of policy on how often a given image can be nominated for delisting. I would suggest a maximum of once every 6 months. Someone care to take point on making a policy? I suggest we take it to a talk page somewhere... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a need for policy. It's common sense. Feel free to quash any obviously early renominations. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 20:55
    • There is a current discussion about this topic (minimum time before a relist) on the FPC talk page under "Mass Delisting." -- moondigger 21:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is this photo a cultural icon that I dont know about? and I dont mean that sarcastically. The outcry to keep the animation is very astonishing. -- AJ24 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • TSP explained why it's significant near the top of this subpage. The animation was rotoscoped from Edward Muybridge's galloping horse photos. Those photos were significant in the history of photography and the study of movement; there was disagreement in those days about whether all four of a horse's hooves were ever off the ground at the same time while galloping. His photos relied on what was then cutting-edge photographic technology and solved the mystery. I think this animation would catch less flack if only the horse weren't smiling. I know it works fine as a cartoon to have the horse smiling, but I believe the animation would be taken more seriously if it had a more realistic head/face. -- Moondigger 20:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You explained its significance, but due to the smile and large protruding eyes, is it really the best representation of Muybridge's work, or was it only accepted because it is the closest representation to his work? Thanks. -- AJ24 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is accepted because it is an illustration of cartoon. Even though a cartoon can look goofy, it is still very accurate in movement so as to have a resemblence to whatever it is representing. --liquidGhoul 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• AJ24 - have you looked at the Eadweard Muybridge article at all? There, you'll see the original photos in motion. This isn't about that at all, it's about animated cartoons and rotoscoping, a method of making animated characters - yes, even goofy ones - using real photos/films as a reference... --Janke | Talk 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the cartoonishness is, IMO, part of the point. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --- Gnangarra 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dr.Keep, or how I learned to love the animated horse. -Ravedave 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, illustrates its articles very well. --Dschwen 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept - 2 Delist, 15 Keep --Fir0002 10:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

monopoly

Monopoly

Not only is it impossible to see the detail of the opposite side of the board, but it is extremely blurred. Not in any way exceptional. Needs to be delisted from FP status.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Besides the problems mentioned in the nomination, it doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements. I doubt a higher-resolution replacement would pass muster by current standards. -- moondigger 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks great. --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Its blurred, grainy, and instead of being an above view of the board it is at a slanted angle, whereas you can not in any way see the details of the board. Again, it is grainy and blurred around the monopoly money and figurines. No where near exceptional quality. And it is most certainly, Most Certainly, not "great". -- AJ24 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • So you now plan to dictate to me what I feel is great do you? Before you set up your dicatorship, maybe find out what Wikipedia is about. Every person is equal and so is their opinion although some of us seem to think they are more equal --Fir0002 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I "dictated" to you nothing. You took that "equality" line right out of 1984. You need to calm down and rationalize. It is overly inappropriate and rude for you to not only jump to odd conclusions of dictatorships, but take my brief statements and make your own interpretation. And below, I was speaking in direct response to user Chris73, not you. Unless you are using sock puppets or whatever their called.... Furthermore, immediately refrain from jumping to conclusions and those comments of yours should be kept to themselves until you can bring a plausible reason not to delist that image of poor quality. I gave more than adequate reasons for delisting: it is grainy (around all shadows), blurred, small, and no where near an exceptional photograph (opinion). Another opinion of mine is you have formed a belittling vendetta against me for nominating a few of your images for delisting. I do not look at the users, I examine the photographs primarily based on quality, encyclopedic value, significance, and most of all whether it is exceptional or not. Im sorry you feel that the nominating process for delisting should be regulated, but the majority feel it should not be. -- AJ24 15:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • You just don't get it do you? You can give reasons until your ears go blue, but that counts for diddly squat in a FPC nomination, delisting or otherwise. So giving "more than enough reasons to delist" does not entitle you to reject a vote as erroneous. Furthermore this is an open discussion, and there is no such thing as isolating only one person to converse with. And it is "overly inappropriate and rude" for you to suggest that. Re: vendetta - grow up why don't you? --Fir0002 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For the umpteenth time, please cite a reason for your "Keep" so that I can address your reason. Thank You. -- AJ24 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You've got a very skewed out look on the delisting process. You don't give reasons so that people can say that you are wrong. The main area reasons are encouraged is for "opposes" or "delists", where the image can be improved not downgraded. --Fir0002 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The image meets my size requirement, licensing, and usage. And, most of all, i LIKE the picture, and don't agree with your quality defect list. Same goes for all my other Keep votes. On a side note, I think you may be overdoing it with nominations for delistings. Featured pictures is not limited to the top ten pictures in wikipedia, and many of the images nominated for delisting are in my opinion excellent featureworthy pictures. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Classic shot of a difficult subject to photograph. I think it does so well. Very simple and clear. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:19
  • Uh, this subject is definitely not difficult to photograph. What happens when somebody posts a Monopoly gameboard picture that actually is good? Does this one get delisted then? Does everybody who insisted this one was high-quality recant their support? -- moondigger 02:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The subject of a game is more difficult to decide what to shoot because the game is not something as physical as an animal or flower. This image keeps it simple, choosing to show the board in action, but not to include the players or any background content. There is more to quality than resolution and sharpness. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 05:32
      • All I'm suggesting is that somebody could duplicate the idea this photographer had, maybe even the rough composition, and end up with something cleaner, less blurry, and with enough extra detail that you could actually tell which cards are "Chance" and which are "Community Chest," for example. If that happens, does support for this version disappear? If I thought there were more than a small handful of Wikipedians who wished for a better version of this photo, I might shoot it myself. But as things stand, not only does a consensus think this one is good, they think it's good enough to be featured. -- moondigger 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What we do here is not consensus. It's simple voting. Don't get the two mixed up. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:42
          • I realize that we're voting, but according to the text at the top of the FPC page and in the introduction to the Nominations for Delisting section, we vote to reach a consensus. We may not meet the strict definition of consensus on many of these images, but we pretend that a 2/3 majority in the voting is equivalent. If it bothers you that we call something a consensus when it isn't, then maybe you could propose on the talk page that we eliminate references to it in the section headings and in the FP tag template. -- moondigger 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Anyone can add whatever inaccurate statements they want to a page. Voting is not consensus. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 17:22
              • Agreed -- as I said, we (most of us, anyway) pretend that what happens here and in the FPC discussions is equivalent to consensus, even though it isn't. Since that usage clearly bothers you, you could propose on the FPC talk page that the offending word be stricken from the procedure descriptions and the FP tag template. Or, you could simply change the wording to reflect it without briging it up on the talk page. As things stand right now, it is used incorrectly on hundreds of pages, including every FP page that uses the FP tag template. Complaining that I used the word incorrectly in a single delist discussion does nothing to solve the larger problem. -- moondigger 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, should be higher resolution, and have crisper lines. I think a better version could be taken since it's a photo you just need to setup and easier to recapture than nature ones. gren グレン 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Should we by default delist images that get nominated for removal independently more than n times? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so... that would kind of subvert the whole process of trying to reach consensus. To pick one example, I have a feeling the animated horse will come up for delisting semi-frequently, since new participants here won't know the history, and may not be familiar with the reasons it was promoted. That doesn't mean it should be automatically delisted after n people have nominated it. Maybe those who nominate it will be swayed to support once they learn more about it. -- moondigger 12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist per nom--Vircabutar 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As I said in a previous delist nom, I think that we should at LEAST use an English-language Monopoly set for a featured picture on the EN-Wikipedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Except the big LOS and the nur zum Besuch that I can hardly read on the jail, the text is completely blurry and I am sure that most people didn't notice that this is a german game. However, you raise a good point: It would be better to have a higer resolution shot on which the main features are readable (and in english). for that reason Delist --Glaurung 05:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep lokks great Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist. Although I like the picture itself and the perspective, the size and blurriness are a bit too much, beign in German isn't a plus, but it doesn't matter. I wonder if somebody could take another version of this preferably with the traditional tokens. say1988 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is a good image, for those that say a better image can be taken please do so, then nominate for FP then nominate this delisting

• Whether a better picture can be taken OR not, I think this picture should be delisted, but a higher quality of this same shot would be good (contrary to the nominator saying it was bad composition). And sorry to tell you, but not everybody can go out and get a picture of a subject I lack both a monopoly board and a good enough camera to take a high quality picture. say1988 01:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. This is a great way to photograph the board/game in progress, but it is too blurry and small to be of much use. As per a couple of others, and with no offense to the German game, in English Wikipedia we should have a pic of an English language board (which is the original? Probably the American version?). And with the proper game pieces. Would love to see you have a go at it Moondigger. And agree that nominator needs to calm down. --jjron 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I would like to be able to read the board and cards. This is not a once in a lifetime shot and can be done better. HighInBC 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist and reshoot. Too small, lacks DOF. --Dschwen 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I probably should list this as a stand alone nomination, but what are people's thoughts of this as a replacement for this image? --Fir0002 10:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a lot better. Good DOF, higher res, and a much better job of blowing out (or photoshopping away) the background! --Dschwen 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd still prefer the "classic" Monopoly version be used, but yes, this is an improvement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 9 Delist 6 Keeps --Fir0002 10:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

eskimodog

American Eskimo Dog

Its an amazing dog with its capablities, but this photo does not truly capture the dog whatsoever. Unencyclopedic. Also grainy surrounding the dog and background is considerably blurred.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have you mentioned on the nominator's or uploader's talk page that you've nominated this for delisting? --Bagginz 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment from uploader: No, he didn't. I am disappointed that AJ24 didn't inform me of the proposed delisting, despite the instructions in boldface above.
      AJ24, why do you say the picture is "unencyclopedic"? It was taken specifically for Wikipedia, to replace the previous breed picture (which was horrible--tiny, distorted, highly compressed--and has since been deleted). It displays the dog, as a representative of his breed, as best as I could manage. The background was chosen to be (a) a contrasting color, and (b) uninteresting, since it was not the subject of the picture; it was not intended to be in focus.
      I was flattered to have this picture nominated for FP, and honored to have it selected. Having had the blown highlights pointed out to me, I don't personally feel they detract from the picture; the dog is, after all, white. -- Robert Southworth 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      P.S. Keep. -- Robert Southworth 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As I mention below, the dog really ought to be standing, not seated. There are many aspects of breed standard that aren't able to be seen when a dog is seated. As far as a Featured Picture is concerned, I think any shot of a dog breed should taken to best illustrate breed standard. This is an attractive image, and one that is of use to the article, but it is honestly not the most encyclopedic pose you could have used. I'd support a similar image with the dog standing on all fours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The question was directed at AJ24. I'd like to hear hir reasoning for the "unencyclopedic" comment, as well as an explanation as to why hie didn't tell the uploader, Robert Southworth, or the original nominator, Sango123, on their talk pages that the picture was nominated for delisting. With all the talk about high standards for content around here, I'd like to see something about conduct.
          
          As far as the pose of the dog is concerned, yes, as you note below, they do judge dogs on all fours. They get that pose by a choke chain at one end and holding the tail at the other so that some lady with big hair can feel its muscles and look at its teeth -- very contrived and not photogenic. The pose above is no less encyclopedic than the photo of the Mexican Gray Wolf above (which you enthusiatically supported), and no less illustrative. Where does it say that an FP about a dog has to meet standards set by the American Kennel Club? The American Eskimo Dog article is about a breed, not a breed-standard checklist. If this picture were illustrative of something else about the breed (like its disposition), or used to compare the coats of different dogs (as is done here and here), then by the standard you're proposing, such a photo would be automatically disqualified to be serious FP candidate material. --Bagginz 07:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There are a myriad of ways to get a dog to stand on all fours, the method used at a dog show is not the only way (and I would agree would likely make for an unattractive photo), my dog used to be able to stand on command... certainly long enough to snap a photo or two. The pose *is* less encyclopedic than the Mexican Gray Wolf one because a breed of dog (which is the stated subject of the photo at hand) is defined by a breed standard. If you are going to illustrate an Eskimo Dog, one might wish to see (for example) the curled tail (a very important and highly-identifiable aspect of the breed) which this image masks. It is not 'written' that an FP about a dog has to meet standards set by the American Kennel Club... nor did I suggest that it was. I said that my standard for judging an FPC about a breed of dog (not just a photo with a dog in it) was that it should be in a pose that was encyclopedic (i.e., one that lets you see the characterists of the breed). I also never mentioned the AKC, but they do have useful text descriptions of their stated breed standards. Also, if the photo is not about the breed, but about the coat or the dispostion, then the picture would need to be encyclopedic for the relevant subject. Bottom-line, you want a photo of an American Eskimo Dog to be featured and I think that you should (for example) be able to see the curled tail. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your reply, and kindly stop SHOUTING. First, it's great that you could get your dog to stand in one place long enough for "a photo or two," but that's not my experience. A good picture at a good angle takes a long time and a lot more than a couple of shutter clicks. Volunteer work I did with an Eskie rescue usually involved taking at least a dozen photos of each dog to find ones that were good enough even for the modest purposes of Petfinder.com. Second, I apologize for not understanding that your argument is about "breed" pictures per se, but you did write, for a featured picture, "any shot of a dog breed should be taken to best illustrate breed standard." This, and the earlier reference to judging dogs at a dog show led to the comment involving the AKC.
              
              That said, I think you're splitting fur and your use of "encyclopedic" in this context is too restrictive and arbitrary. I would argue that for a picture to be "encyclopedic" about a dog breed, it only needs enough information to identify the breed, just like a picture of a Mexican Gray Wolf be what a Mexican Gray Wolf looks like. Even a head shot can be "encyclopedic enough." While the curled tail over the backside is a defining characteristic of Eskies (because it's a spitz), it is not the only defining characteristic nor is it a necessary one for identification. If the picture were about spitzes in general, you might have a point, but here an insistence on seeing the tail is overkill. Example: Of the six cover photos on the American Eskimo Dog "How To" books I found at Amazon.com, four of them had the dogs seated or otherwise not showing their tails. Yet the dogs were immediately recognizable as Eskies and I would think the cover photo of such dog books are designed to be "encyclopedic."
              
              You're certainly entitled to your standards, but to me, a sitting dog is no disqualifier from it being in a "breed" FP. American Eskimo Dog is a perfectly appropriate caption for the above. It wouldn't be more encyclopedic to re-caption it, The Fluffy White Coat of the American Eskimo Dog, or American Eskimo Dog Happy To Have Been Given The 'Sit' Command, or Non-Samoyed White Canine Furball.
              
              My apologies for the length of my remarks. --Bagginz 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
              • First, let me apologize for "shouting". I assumed that the capitalization would be taken as it was intended (emphasis), and not as shouting. Normally, when one is shouting, one shouts entire phrases or sentences, not isolated words. I assumed that you would be familiar with this convention. I'll take care in the future to not automatically assume that you'll understand me. As I have no wish to damage your hearing by shouting so loudly, I've replaced the capitalized words in my previous message with italics (with the exception of words that are capitalized because they are acronyms). I hope this is more to your liking.
                
                Secondly, I am sorry to hear that such a great number of pet owners don't feel the responsibility to properly train their pets, but I cannot believe that it takes "a long time" to take shots of standing dogs. One of the Wikipedia pages that you referred to above (this one) shows many shots of standing dogs which seem to fit the description that I gave. In case you weren't able to notice them, I'll give you a few examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] are a few.
                
                You wrote: I apologize for not understanding that your argument is about "breed" pictures per se, but you did write, for a featured picture, "any shot of a dog breed should be taken to best illustrate breed standard." This, and the earlier reference to judging dogs at a dog show led to the comment involving the AKC.... I can see how you might have been confused about my position on photos about dog breeds. I thought that by saying 'any shot of a dog breed' you would understand that I meant 'dog breed' and not 'dog'. There are many images with dogs in them, but not as many that attempt to illustrate a specific breed. I also thought the reference to breed standard would make it apparent that I was talking about photos dealing with illustrating a breed, and not just a random photo that might have a dog in it. Again, my apologies for confusing you. As far as the bit where my reference to dog shows led you to reference the AKC, you may not be aware of this, but there are actually a number of organizations around the world that hold dog shows. You may wish to review the Wikipedia articles kennel club and conformation show for more information on this issue.
                
                I understand your position on a breed photo only needing to have just enough information to identify the breed (extraneous details like key/notable physical features being unnecessary), allow me to suggets that for an image to be a Featured Picture it might be preferable to be able to see (perhaps) all of the key features of a given breed... in the case of the AED (a spitz, as you've noted), this includes (as per my suggestion) the curled tail. I'm not entirely certain what relevance the books that you found on Amazon.com have to the discussion, as I'm assuming that most of those books are not encyclopedias (since you referred to them as 'how-to' books).
                
                Thank you for recognizing that I'm entitled to my standards... as you are to yours. As for alternative captions, while the ones you've listed do have a certain charm, please consider these as well: Attractive Photo Of A Dog That Unfortuntely Masks One Of The Key Features Of The Breed, Photo Of A Dog With Serious Technical Flaws (Such As Blown Highlights On The Subject), or (my personal favorite) This Is Not A Photo Of A Fire-Truck.
                
                My apologies if any of the above seems condescending, but since you didn't seem to understand a few of my earlier points, I thought it best to err on the side of caution. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Condescending? Dante, your abundance of caution positively dribbles with altruism. Alas, your fears for my noggin's density are a little misplaced. I understand your positions, I just don't agree with them. Emphasizing words by capitalizing all the letters (in the way you did before your edits) has been considered rude "shouting" since the days of Usenet, but standards may have changed. I know what an acronym is--I don't need a link, thanks. I'm aware that the AKC is not the only organization that holds beauty pageants of expensive doggies. And while I appreciate your "apology-if-necessary" on the condescension, I'm not upset and you needn't worry; I'm not going to metaphorically chew up your couch, pee on your carpet, or set fire to a bag of American Eskimo Dogshit on your doorstep.
                  
                  I started to write an entry on how my positions have been misread and misstated, and why some of the examples you've just provided don't really buttress your arguments. I'm prepared to finish the entry and post it if anyone asks. But out of (un)common decency towards the denizens of Wikipedia, I'll shut up here in the hopes of a little less tempest in this teapot, and agree to disagree. Still, like my dog, I might start yapping again if somebody knocks on my door a little too loudly. :-) --Bagginz 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Dante. Even in order to be an image suitable for the "American Eskimo Dog" article page there must be an image of the dog where its full body is visible. To be frank, if the image is not good enough for its article page it is most definitely not worthy of FP status. Even if it was upright on all fours, it still must be posed in a way where the dog's proportions, size, and shape are clearly visible. In no way does the current photograph enable any of those necessities. I am unnerved that an image such as this can slip through the 7-day process of FPCandidates. This is one of those images that if it was nominated today, it would not be accepted. -- AJ24 15:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. The blurred background is a plus, since the subject is the dog and not the background. However his back is one giant blown highlight. Cute dog, but not FP material. -- moondigger 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If this photo isn't encyclopedic of American Eskimo Dog, than what would be? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with AJ24 about it being unencyclopedic -- as you point out, it's a picture of a particular breed of dog used on that breed's article. But encyclopedic does not automatically equal feature-worthy. The blown highlights violate "be of high quality," and it's otherwise a routine photo (i.e., not "Wikipedia's best work"). -- moondigger 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A blurry background is not a bad thing; in many cases, it's actually quite desirable. Nota bene bokeh : "For example, causing an out-of-focus background image may reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject." Tokugawapants 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO the background isn't enough out of focus ! What's that "sharpness everywhere" madness ? Ericd 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Captures the dog perfectly. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Blown highlights. Also, I think that a standing pose would be more encyclopedic than a seated pose. There's a reason that they judge dogs standing on all fours at dog shows. There are many aspects of 'breed standard' that are impossible to discern on a seated dog. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist not quite an FP quality
• Keep. Agree with Samsara that it captures the dog perfectly, even if seated. --Bagginz 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's such a beautiful dog I wish I didn't have to delist it, but there's no valid argument for keeping it. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 5 Delist, 4 Keep --Fir0002 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

towerofhanoi

Tower of Hanoi

Tower of Hanoi, alternative by Bernard

Entire image extremely grainy. Bad quality, small, and poor technical animation. (maximize image to view thoroughly).

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I see no graininess whatsoever. What are you referring to? -- moondigger 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In the animated shadow of the object. Remember to maximize the photo before viewing, apparently there are some technical problems viewing without maximizing. -- AJ24 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you call graininess in such a picture. Ericd 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see nothing wrong with it at all. PPGMD 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I see the graininess too. Actually, more like the animation leaves bits of the disks behind after they move. This is in Firefox. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Much too few frames, and grainy. Keep if it can be made about as smooth as my alternative version, which is not a piece of art but at least is easier to look at. --Bernard 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - prefer Bernard's version, but this is still good enough and is a fascinating subject. However, I'm not sure that AJ24 completely understands animated GIFs... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Illustrates the article perfectly. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:18
• Neutral, I do see graininess... but, I'm not sure it's anything bad. My biggest problem is the movement of the pieces... I prefer the sing-song flow of the other image. But that's not a reason to delist, I don't believe. It could be bigger... but then you'd get scaling issues (for me in firefox when scaled to 300px I saw artifacts). gren グレン 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Even though the image's subject is still in my opinion unexceptional and insignificant, the new image submitted by Bernard has no problems with quality. The original Tower of Hanoi needs to be replaced by the new image of greater quality. -- AJ24 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality? The new image looks worse then the original, I like the movement quality, but the look of the old one is simply better. PPGMD 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - Bernard's version is far superior. Jono (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The use of 3D objects is far superior to the use of a flat animation, if the bernard image is so good why hasn't it been nominated for FP Gnangarra 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Looks good to me. -Ravedave 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Retained. 3 Delist, 3 Neutral, 7 Keep --Fir0002 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

mad_scientist

Mad Scientist

Like the running animated horse, this is of poor animation quality. A proper depiction of "mad scientist" would be Dr. Jeckyll or the scientist in Frankenstein. Not a low-quality cartoon. And isnt that image a Microsoft Word Clipart???

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist!--Vircabutar 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment i can't believe how this image could be a FP after all the overqualified picture we turned down; very un-encyclopedic!!!
• Keep. What makes you say it's "poor animation quality"? It's not even an animation, it's a still image, and it's a very good one. —Keenan Pepper 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Image:Piratey, vector version.svg and Image:Villianc.svg should remain featured images as well. —Keenan Pepper 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a very good depiction of a mad scientist. I see no problem with quality. --liquidGhoul 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. --Fir0002 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It doesn't fit "be Wikipedia's best work," IMO. -- moondigger 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. To Keenan Pepper, you cannot choose in one photograph to not scrutinize the medium or the subject and in another not even pay attention to the medium. Everyone must pay close attention to the medium of the mad scientist image, it is an image you see in a cheap powerpoint display, cheesy, and not one of Wikipedia's best. To LiquidGhoul, Dr. Jekyll is a good depiction of a mad scientist, not a cartoon with a bigger set of teeth than most sharks. But if consenus wishes to keep the image, then I fully expect those who voted Keep, to Support images of the same quality in FP nominations... Thanks. AJ24 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific, technical criticisms of this drawing, or just vague insults like "cheesy"? You said "low quality", but I'm not sure what that means. For a photo that would make me think resolution, but this is a vector image, so the resolution is unlimited. —Keenan Pepper 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have a vague idea of what insult means. To the point, the illustration is low quality in terms of depiction. I also thoroughly read the article and the introductory paragraphs caught my attention, the focus was entirely on cartoons of recent years. Dr. Jekyll and Victor Frankenstein, iconoclasts of mad scientists, are footnotes in the article, and neither in any version of media appeared to be like the cheesy illustration in the article. Not only does it not represent the term Mad Scientist as it is most famous for, but the image itself is insignificant and most certainly unencyclopedic. On another note, I ask you to browse the Featured Pictures listings and see how great the majority of the images are, and compare it to this one. -- AJ24 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change your tune pretty quick don't you? "going through some of the FP listings I see some pictures with poor quality and no significance" --Fir0002 05:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist unencyclopedic. -- Samir धर्म 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a very good illustration of a mad scientist and I don't see any quality issues with it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A very good image of an iconic subject. Quality (svg) is excellent. I see no reson at all for nominating for delisting. To AJ24: You need to study the history of the images better: This is not MS clipart, it was made by a wikipedian, and is highly appreciated by many - see and read the image description page, numerous users have it on their user pages. --Janke | Talk 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral not that excited by the image, but it really does illustrate mad scientist well. Something about his evil regard doesn't quite gel with me though. This character just looks raving mad, rather than intelligent but eccentric. *shrug* Stevage 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ric36 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously. What's low quality about it? It's an svg, so it can be made to be 10,000 pixels wide if you want. Read Scalable Vector Graphics. It's a generic stereotype of a mad scientist, perfect for a general article about mad scientists. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:13
• Keep... it's some of our best SVG caricature stuff... I don't like the picture but it still seems to be the best work in its own category. gren グレン 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - I hate these FP's... It just is not an amazing picture. I also want to get rid of the stupid clip art "pirate" and "villain"... Viva La Vie Boheme 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User has 8 edits outside user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:59
    • Brian, just so you ought to know, I have been editing Wikipedia for a LONG time. You cannot judge from my edits. I did a lot of work under just my IP, and I had a user name a long time ago, however, I forgot the password. I recently picked up three years later, and I just recently created an account. So stop judging me! 10 edits or 10000 edits, my opinion is valid. I also had two successful FP's on the old account. Viva La Vie Boheme 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It is common practice here, on RFA, on AFD, etc, to alert users when a brand new account is placing a lot of votes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-21 02:51
• Keep. Good stereotypical depiction of a mad scientist that isn't "clouded" by preconceptions that we'd have if it were an "actual" mad scientist, like Frankenstein or Jeckyll. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dante. Jono (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist this and any other image that perpetuates invalid and derogatory stereotypes. This rubbish does not belong as a FP. --jjron 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very good depiction. Given that the subject matter - the mad scientist stock character - is fiction, I fail to see how this perpetuates harmful stereotypes. --Kizor 14:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, there is no "invalid" or "derogatory stereotype" here. This is a sterotypical rendition of a FICTIONAL literary device. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• So obviously you two have done substantial reading into the psychological literature on the formation of children's attitudes to science and beliefs about scientists? Views that are shaped by images such as this. And I assume you would also support a FICTIONAL cartoon character depicting a stock racial stereotype - because after all, it would just be fictional, so couldn't cause any harm! You may argue this belongs in an encyclopedia, as some other offensive images do, but it certainly does not need to be a FP. Delist. --jjron 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. I have always thought that this one is utterly useless and ridiculous as a featured picture. mstroeck 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Ack mstroeck. Doesn't help to promote the image of a serious credible encyclopedia to feature a pic like this. --Dschwen 18:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the "serious credible encyclopedia" Encyclopædia Britannica Online doesn't even HAVE an article on 'mad scientist'. I'd say we're already way ahead of the game. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kizor and Stock character. -Seidenstud 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I don't think this meets the minimum requirement for image size. Also, even if it does illustrate what it's supposed to illustrate, there's not way this is one of wikipedia's best images. When I look at FP images, I look for photograpic masterpieces, not cheesy clip art.--Joniscool98 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SVG : Scalable Vector Graphic I don't think a size requirement has any sense with vector graphics. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Featured Pics should be more than just photographs. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Not very encyclopedic. —Aiden 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no need to be boring to become serious and credible. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 10 Delist, 1 Neutral, 15 Keep --Fir0002 10:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

wolfspider

Wolf Spider

Severe Jpeg artifacting, overall poor quality of image, and the upper portion of the image surrounding the spider is blurred and maybe even blown out (?).

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I do really like the image based upon the pose of the spider, but this is a very common spider, and it is very commonly in a similar pose. So, there is no reason to look over the problems with the photo. --liquidGhoul 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite why you chose to Keep? -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Give it a break AJ24! It's been all of 5 months since it was last nominated for delisting, wiht a result of 9 keep and 1 delist. --Fir0002 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said on Discussion, a vested interest... -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per LiquidGhoul. Also doesn't meet resolution requirements. (Sorry, Fir.) -- moondigger 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom .. this image's quality just bugs me. It's too small and too blurry. No prejudice to the photographer, of course. --Cyde↔Weys 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This scene easily beats all the other spider FP scenes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:15
  • So all somebody has to do to get a slightly blurry and low resolution picture featured is upload a bunch of even lower-quality versions of the same subject to compare it to? -- moondigger 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (BTW, Fir, that's not directed at you, nor am I implying that's what you did. It's just a thought experiment intended as a response to Brian's comment.) -- moondigger 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You're not making any sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 05:29
      • Come on, Brian. I know you understand what I'm saying. We're supposed to judge FPCs against the FP criteria, not other images. By that reasoning we could just promote any mediocre image, as long as other images of the same subject are worse. And if all the other spider FPs are actually worse than this one, then people have been promoting spider images to FP status not based on the criteria, but based on the "Yikes, a spider!" reaction. -- moondigger 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm comparing one FP against other FP's. I'm assuming that they all got to be FPs based on people judging them against the FP criteria, so it's a level playing field. What you're suggesting I'm implying is completely different. Your first comment really did make no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:37
• Weak keep, it really is too low resolution... but, it is just about the best scene we have. moondigger seems to have a great sense of image quality... but, I can't say that we should delist it just because of image quality (and it isn't horrible) when I don't see images that have a comparably good scene. gren グレン 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Most people have a good sense of image quality if they are willing to look at an image critically rather than simply reacting to their first impression/emotion. ("Ooh... blue!" [Pangong Lake] or "Yikes, a closeup of a spider!") I may be a stickler around here, but I'm a pushover compared to college-level photography instructors, magazine/art editors, and even most of the random participants on photography forums. (FWIW, I am/have been a moderator and contributor to two of the biggest/most respected photography web forums on the internet over the past 9+ years.) In any case I seem to be in a distinct minority here, as few agree with me about much of anything. :^) -- moondigger 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • More or less I agree and trust you on just about everything... except your vision of what a featured picture is. You would have a rather small set of photos with very stringent requirements. But it varies among users. Even the 1000px requirement is tempered by "generally". Not everyone will ever agree on what a FP should be. It's part of the boon or bane of Wikipedia. You are completely right that we react emotionally to images. I didn't weigh in on the Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali picture because I think it's nifty looking no matter photo quality. Upon closer look I didn't like how it was lined up...slight angle, different amoungs shown of the circular protrusions, etc. but... there still is an emotional reaction to photos. I'm not sure that's bad. I just don't like the arguing... when it happens editors lead. It's why Zora hasn't been around for a month and I stay away from Islam-related articles as they descend into the pit of hell ~_~. Your critique is incredible valuable and has swayed me on a few. Keep it up but I just wish that everyone would keep the atmosphere here a little friendlier. It's only a question of if an image is featured or not. It's not anything near like the tensions involved in say, Middle East articles. gren グレン 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I think Fir should just go and shoot a new wolf spider photo. He can clearly do better than this. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Agree with Dante. This looks like a crop from a slightly blurry pic which you tried to save using the sharpen tool. --Dschwen 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing so substantively wrong with this picture that it should be delisted. --Bagginz 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if you think a better image can be created then do so. Gnangarra 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • To be accurate, I said that Fir could take a better shot (he IS the original shooter, and quite a good photographer), not that I could do it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Ravedave 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per criteria when promoted. Would appreciate a higher res version in future (at which time I would be happy to delist this). --jjron 10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Pretty good photo is too small. -Seidenstud 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 7 Delist, 7.5 Keep --Fir0002 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

emperor_gum_moth

Emperor Gum Moth Caterpillar

Subject very blurred and portions of the image are blown out to an extreme. Also, grainy in the dead center of the photograph.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep taking into account the realities of depth and focus I can't see how it would be possible for the whole caterpillar to be in focus in such a shot, also I don't see the graininess though that could just be my vision going. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a good macro photo, quality macro photos are hard to get, and this is one, it should be a FP. PPGMD 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist since you guys (wikipedians) always complain about the overblown white area
• Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral There are problems with the photo (especially the blown out area), but the focus is very good. Maybe we should wait for another Emperor Gum Moth Caterpillar to become featured before we delist this one. Fir, I hope you go out this Spring and try again, your photography (and camera?) has improved since this photo. I'm sure you could get a better photo. --liquidGhoul 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If as see any I'll take them, the problem is the rarity of the event. --Fir0002 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. The problems are obvious. Another case in which it's valuable to the article but not FP material. I see no reason to keep it featured until another better image of the same caterpillar comes available - delisting does not mean deleting. -- moondigger 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per PPGMD. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:16
• Delist. Even ignoring the SUPER blown background, there are blown highlights on the subject itself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think we need to chill out on "blown highlights" -Ravedave 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Blown areas in an image are almost always a major flaw, especially when they aren't just tiny specular highlights. More than 20% of the area of this photo is blown (estimated)... that's not something I think most would overlook if this image were nominated for FP status today. -- Moondigger 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This picture deserves its FP status. I've seen worse blown highlights in National Geographic. --Bagginz 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see Moondigger's remarks above in the Wolfspider delisting page (concerning comparisons). -- AJ24 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I did, and I stand by my comment. BTW, did you tell Fir on his talk page that you nominated this to be delisted per the delisting guidelines? --Bagginz 07:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you should take a closer look. You are basing your vote upon a comparison to National Geographic instead of FPCriteria. Concerning nominating notification, please see your User Discussion page. -- AJ24 02:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I am basing my vote on the sincere belief that, taken as a whole, aethetically and technically, this photograph is exemplary of the best of user contributions to Wikipedia and should be recognized as such. I am cognizant of the FP criteria. National Geographic is a magazine that has notably high standards for photography as well. The comparison to National Geographic is my murky way of saying that I won't use the FP criteria as a series of rigid and inflexible check-off boxes, any one of which can summarily dismiss otherwise deserving contributions. Regarding nomination stuff, kindly check your user page as well. --Bagginz 08:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained. 4 Delist, 1 Neutral, 7 Keep --Fir0002 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris from Notre Dame

Paris view from Notre Dame

I think this image is too small and blurred. --Daĉjo^почта 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and delist. --Daĉjo^почта 14:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Great scene, excellent use of shadow. Illustrates gargoyle perfectly, among other articles. It's also one of the few FPC nominations to get a large unanimous support when it was nominated. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:54
• Keep (see below)Your criticisms are valid: it is slightly unsharp, and doesn't meet minimum resolution requirements. But both of these issues could be fixed, and probably should be given the other positive aspects -- composition, exposure, etc. I'll put in a request to the original uploader to see if a higher resolution copy could be supplied. -- moondigger 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Vircabutar 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As I said in April, this wouldn't make the cut today. A better shot can and should be taken. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The area of the gargoyle is of exceptional quality, but the remainder of the image is blurred to an extent where it is impossible to see any defining details. -- AJ24 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delist - it's a nice photo and all, but not a high enough resolution. If somebody could get up to that spot and re-take this picture then that would be awesome, because the perspective is brilliant. --Jono (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do next time I'm by there. THEPROMENADER 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist unless higher res found The picture is excellent, but it doesn't meet the basic requirement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though would prefer a higher res version. --jjron 10:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep Too small, wondeful content. HighInBC 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Olegivvit 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist again. --Dschwen 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Great picture but far too small. -Seidenstud 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - too small. —Aiden 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Having received no response to my request for a higher-resolution version that could be improved upon from the original uploader, I'm withdrawing my "Keep" vote. Maybe another Wikipedian visiting Notre Dame could take a similar photo. -- Moondigger 16:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained as featured picture. I too am curious as to how photos survive delisting when, like this one, they'd be shot to pieces if nominated today, but that's not for me to worry about I suppose. Raven4x4x 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

marine_vietnam

Da Nang, Vietnam. A young Marine private waits on the beach during the Marine landing. - August 3, 1965

I understand that the image has great significance and rarety, but it does not depict a marine "...in Vietnam" well at all. The surrounding area is not shown or even the entire Marine. The image does not appear to be have been taken during a time of battle, so it would not have been a problem to clearly take the image of the whole soldier or the surrounding area as well. But mainly, its Fair Use status is questionable. The original author of the image is unknown and the image is only considered to be in Fair Use status.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Original nominator is currently on "vacation". Due to the circumstance, should the nomination for delisting be postponed? -- AJ24 15:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Cryptic is not on vacation; he has left the project. I believe the copyright status of the image is in the clear, however. Besides being from the National Archives, the source page states that it's from the records of the USMC, which would make it public domain. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what your talking about, the image was nominated for FP status by Darwinek in November of 2005. His user page says he is on vacation. -- AJ24 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, Cryptic uploaded a revised image. Didn't see that clearly. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's a famous and historic photo. Even if we were to ignore the historical significance, it's a particularly fine informal portrait. No question in my mind that this should remain a featured picture. -- Moondigger 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ditto Moondigger. --Davepape 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Moondigger. PPGMD 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Main and possibly only concern is "Fair Use" status. I agree, the image is above and beyond excellent. -- AJ24 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you question it I quote "...but it does not depict a marine "...in Vietnam" well at all. The surrounding area is not shown or even the entire Marine. The image does not appear to be have been taken during a time of battle, so it would not have been a problem to clearly take the image of the whole soldier or the surrounding area as well."

The copyright status seems to be a secondary concern. Also you could have attempted to figure out the copyright status without putting the picture up for FP delisting. Not only that but the copyright status has always been fine, it's not fair use, it's public domain, and was that well before you nominated it for delisting. Last edit being March 19th.PPGMD 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"But mainly, its Fair Use status is questionable" - second to last statement. My other concerns, which I am beginning to reconsider, were secondary. The farthest I went in finding its "fair use" status were statements by an original nominator or edtior that said it was assumed to be fair use. -- AJ24 20:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The only person that has even mentioned fair use has been you, it was uploaded, then tagged PD National Archives (with a source link to the page), fair use is not mentioned on the image page, nor in the discussion page, nor the FPC page. Where you are getting fair use out of it I have no idea. PPGMD 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Very historic photo, recognizable instantly, illustrates the fear and apprehension on the soldier's face, and also the age of some of the fighters in the Vietnam War. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for all the reasons listed above and those likely to follow. TomStar81 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm back from the vacation. Keep per users above. - Darwinek 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained as featured picture Raven4x4x 05:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Federal Lands in Southern Nevada

Useful? maybe; image, however, lacks FP quality picture similar to above: nothing special and lacks "wow" quality

• Nominate and Delist. - Vircabutar 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was made by a Wikipedian. That's enough "wow" factor for me. howcheng {chat} 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The map is not extraordinary and if this was nominated for FP status today it would be denied. -- AJ24 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's professional, clear and informative: everything a map should be.--Bagginz 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment yes it's professional and informative (like any other maps), but the question is whether it's amazingly special or encyclopedic that it should be a FP. --Vircabutar 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If "any other map" is professional and informative, I'll show you something drawn on a cocktail napkin. This map was promoted on a 6-1 vote a scant ten months ago. Its creator took suggestions from users to make a good map better. The craftsmanship is enough for me to recommend keeping it as an FP. Perhaps the addition of anthropomorphic clouds with puffy cheeks supplying wind at the four corners and drawing sea dragons off the edges would increase the "wow" factor. --Bagginz 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It doesn't matter who made this...it's still a map, and I don't think there's anything about this map that makes it good enough to be a FP. --Joniscool98 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent quality, informative map produced by a Wikipedian, clearly labelled , nice use of colour, clear to read, includes topographic relief and shows location context within the United States. It is particularly encyclopedic in terms of its subject matter as evidenced by its use in eight articles (Nevada Test Site, Nellis Air Force Range, Nellis Air Force Base, Tonopah Test Range, Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Area 51, Yucca Mountain, Mercury, Nevada) and also appears in other language Wikipedias. It is well referenced on its image page which includes details of its method of production and design rationale which would be very useful to the production of other maps for Wikipedia in the future.--Melburnian 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's also used in the French, Japanese, Polish, Finnish and whatever language ET is Wikipedias. Middenface 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be Estonian. User:Angr 11:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Melburnian - very well made, and illustrates a confluence of locations of interest (particularly Area 51, Yucca Mountain, and early atomic testing range) - not "nothing special". --Davepape 03:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a great example of what Wikipedia should have more of. "wow factor" be damned. Middenface 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Delisting does not mean deleting. This is not a vote about whether Wikipedia should have maps or not -- "wow factor" matters, amongst other things. -- Moondigger 19:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It wows me more than yet another flower or bug. User:Angr 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Retained as featured picture Raven4x4x 06:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Air Force One over Mount Rushmore

Air Force One over Mount Rushmore

For Air Force One, this image is speckly, especially at high res, is a poor match for the vibrant colours of the craft (better shown here), the silver underside appears black and the background looks too dark. For Mount Rushmore, it is uncentred, blurred and taken from a poor angle. As a result, it is not adding much particularly to either article. Suggest delisting. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment; the picture nolonger seems to be in Mount Rushmore. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Great photo. Still features prominently on Air Force One article. --Fir0002 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Highly famous image of AF1. -- AJ24 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The image is speckly at high res, but I don't agree with the other reasons. Metallic paint has to reflect something. The composistion is striking, and it's good on the Air Force One article. --GunnarRene 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Famous image of the aircraft, the speckly look is this thing called grain and almost all high res scans from negative or slide film has it. PPGMD 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wonderful photograph. Excellent illustrative value. Fg2 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it can't really be replicated and the quality isn't that bad. gren グレン 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Shows nice shine on wings noting how clean the aircraft is kept. -- Willtriv 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 00:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

India-locator-map-blank

This image is not remarkable as a FP should be, and the map in and of itself tells you very little about India (no provinces or whatever, landmarks, or even the capital city). In that case, I don't think it's either a political or physical map. If a map is going to be an FP, it needs to have something distinguishing about it. If this map is a featured picture, literally any map that has been well done technically (i.e. no bad jpeg artifacts, large enough, etc.) could be an FP.

• Nominate and Delist. per above. The one thing for it is that it is a template for many other maps of India--but that in and of itself doesn't make it an FP--a template isn't amazing--what it becomes is amazing.Joniscool98 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree; when I saw this as a featured picture I was surprised. It's just a map, and not a particularly special one compared to the many map images on wiki. --DinkY2K 03:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Exactly the same thing I thought when I saw it on the front page. Duran 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This graphic is exceptional for being a highly researched and detailed representation of political boundaries, done in a graphics format (SVG) that allows it to serve admirably for many uses. Maybe it didn't need to be on the front page, because it's not an eyecatcher, but there are other ways that an image can be feature-worthy in the context of an encyclopedia. The work that went into this graphic representation is substantial and it suits an encyclopedia perfectly. Thus, featured. I might change my vote if someone can show that every country has a nice SVG detailed political boundary map. Outriggr 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep –

1. This map was never intended to be on the main page as an eyecatcher.
2. The map is not about the physical or geographical features of India, it is a locator map as the title of the image states. Secondly the map does display the states (it's not called provinces) of India, as opposed to what is claimed in the nomination above.
3. Next, a picture does not have to be a photo.
4. It statisfies most of the criteria in WP:WIAFP. #8 does not really apply, and the #7 may not be exactly the best colours, but they are the ones recommended by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Maps.
5. I'm also surprised about the listing by a user who has not more than 50 contributions to his name.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment First off, I understand that the map is well done as a template (I've done editing of a similar nature, so I do have an idea of the work that goes into it). However, to respond to your points, first off, the first thing it says on the wikipedia FP page is the following: "This page highlights images that we find beautiful, shocking, impressive, and informative." While well-done, I don't consider this image beautiful (at least not in the traditional sense) and certainly not shocking. As for impressive, that's a little more debatable perhaps, but most people aren't "impressed" when they see a (relatively) blank map. Finally, as for infomative, it gives national and state borders (sorry about province, I wasn't sure, to be quite honest, and I should have checked--my fault), and shows disputed areas. However, when I look at a map, I want to see names of the states, at least a capital city, perhaps major physical features, etc. This map doesn't show that. Secondly, there's the issue of it being a locator map. I realize that it's a well-done template, but a template isn't amazing in and of itself--it's what goes in it that makes it amazing (for an analogy, think of a block of marble--it's in the size and general dimensions of say a statue--by itself it perhaps is nice looking, being marble, but not something you would put in a museum--unless it was part of some ancient building or something. However, when a talented sculpter works on it, he or she is able to make it into something magnificent--something that is museum quality. If that analogy doesn't work for you, whatever--I'm just trying to make a point). Also, when I said it didn't show provinces (when I should have said states, of course), what I meant was that it didn't have the names of any of the states. Thirdly, I realize an FP doesn't have to be a photo--I didn't single this out because it wasn't a photo, but because of the criteria that I've previously mentioned. And lastly, you kind of attacked me personally (based on your perception of my relative inexperience) for wanting to delist this picture. I don't really appreciate that, as the issue at stake is not who is nominating, but what in the picture makes it worthy or unworthy. Joniscool98 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    To reply to the above comments, the map does satisfy the required criteria of WP:WIAFP. Featured content on wikipedia represents what's best wikipedia has to offer, not necessarily the "shock" value. I agree that this is a sort of template map, but that's the macro perspective, without going into why it was featured. While nominating the image for FPC, I requested the evaluators not to look at it from the asthetic viewpoint (for which I have kept it strictly according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps guidelines), but for the utility viewpoint: NPOV, SVG, high-native resolution, unique to wikipedia, and accuracy. (See subpoint of #7 ..or the rarer or more significant its content, the less aesthetically-pleasing it may be...). I'm also puzzled with the block of marble analogy you've mentioned above. In my perspective, a rare piece of marble can be kept in a geological museum, solely for it's rare properties. I guess that would be the same here. The map is also drawn to scale, which means by just entering the coordinates of any city, a locator dot is plotted over the location (See diverse locations such as Mumbai, Darjeeling, Kanyakumari, and Srinagar). This is what has been done for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian cities. Lastly, the last point was not intended to be a personal attack. I apologise if you read it that way. I was expressing surprise that a newbie had put this up for deletion. Experience on wikipedia tells us that newbies usually put up material for deletion in bad faith without fully understanding policies. Again, I apologise if you read it as a personal attack. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as it is the best country map created for wikipedia (that I know of).--

Peta 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delist Absolutely agree with joniscool98! --Vircabutar 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Outriggr and Nichalp. All locator maps should strive to reach the standards of this one. CheekyMonkey 09:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per Nichalp and Outriggr. Also not that the image is totally NPOV, shows disputed areas, and is overall, one of the best country locator maps available. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This map never intended to show landmarks, provinces, etc. As the name of the image clearly states, it is a locator map. The locator map should be plain, and clean enough so that anything that is highlighted by a locator dot clearly stands out. I am unable to understand why the nominator wants a locator map to have landmarks and other features, which will only make things difficult. This map is a FP, and any other map which is as comprehensive and unique like this one (this the most comprehensive and neutral Indian map on the internet) should be featured. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Excellent locator map, well researched treatment of a complex topic. -- Avenue 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as i know, this is the only Indian map on the entire www that is NPOV. Simple and accurate, just how a locator map should be. ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 13:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per others.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep of course. Just look at the number of pages that link to this image to get a perspective of the word informative -- Lost^(talk) 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  I think you mistake "useful" for informative. In all these linkages, information was added to this image to make the image informative. MapMaster 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, it has been used as a base map. Infact its ability to be informative is what makes it so useful. I have added the original discussion of the FPC to the talk page. Please also go through that to get a better idea why this image was featured -- Lost^(talk) 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Per others. The image is a locator map, and hence many of the points raised are invalid. There indeed are several distinguising factors about the map, as others have already pointed out. It is well researched and displays all the disputed territories neutrally. It is perhaps the only accurate and precise map of India online, and hence qualifies as wikipedia's best work. And as pointed out above, see how much it adds to the value of the thousands of articles on which it is displayed.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I have no idea how this ever got through FPC in the first place. The reasons people gave above are all reasons it might be useful for some niche purposes on Wikipedia, not good reasons to feature it. -- Moondigger 17:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. This is no information on this map, pure and simple, except maybe to those who already know a great deal about India, but not to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers. It is a drawing pure and simple, but no more beautiful than many other maps (although there are, sadly, a lot of bad maps in Wikipedia). While it is very useful, this qualifies it perhaps as Featured Tool, but not Featured Picture. MapMaster 04:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  user's first edit -- Lost^(talk) 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Outriggr HighInBC 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist — While the map is informative and useful, it is not featured picture material. The map on its own is absolutely useless, hence why it is used in a template. There are other featured maps which actually do serve a purpose on their own. ♠ SG →Talk 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The image on its own is very informative as a locator map. It's a fine example of the genre. --M@rēino 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Retained as Featured Picture. Raven4x4x 09:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Penguins

This is a good and encyclopedic photo, but with a such resolution is too small for a featured picture. It is also have minor blown highlights.

• Delist. Arad 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The blown highlights are minor, and the picture is excellent, but way too small. I doubt anything other than a .svg could be a FP at 57k. HighInBC 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Just wanted to point out that this was already brought up less than two months ago. Seems a bit much to go through the process again. --Davepape 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Vircabutar 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This was nominated for removal only back in July and the no consensus result retained its FP status. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-09-07 15:49Z
• Keep. Mikeo 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist It still has all the same problems it had two months ago -- too small, blown highlights, doesn't show entire penguin. Not encyclopedic. (One additional comment -- "recently nominated for delisting" doesn't seem like a valid criterion for "keep." We're supposed to comment on the image, not side issues like how recent its last nomination for delisting was. If it's being nominated frequently and by different nominators, it's a reasonable assumption that it's lacking compared to other FPs.) -- Moondigger 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Fir0002 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PPGMD 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I went to the USAP project pages to look for another emperor penguin image that wouldn't have the same problems this image exhibits -- higher resolution, no blown highlights, etc. But from what I can tell, these images can't be used on Wikipedia. They are works of the National Science Foundation, which states, "Unless otherwise stated, images and other media in the National Science Foundation Multimedia Gallery are available for use in print and electronic material by NSF employees, members of the media, university staff, teachers and the general public. All media in the gallery are intended for personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only." (Emphasis [bold] theirs.) Also, the USAP website says, "Using USAP resources to conduct non-program commercial activities is prohibited." Can somebody tell me how these restrictions are compatible with Wiki-required licensing? -- Moondigger 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not that I don't believe you, but I couldn't find it myself on the site. Can you give us a link to the copyright policy? howcheng {chat} 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. The specific quote from the USAP website is on one of their general website use policy pages, about 3/4 of the way down the page in the subsection called "Prohibited Business and Commercial Uses". The third sentence in that paragraph says, "Using USAP resources to conduct non-program commercial activities is prohibited." Look here: [16] Since that statement is a general statement that talks about USAP resources (which I'm sure includes images, but doesn't specifically say so), I checked the National Science Foundation website, which I found linked on the USAP website. (The National Science Foundation is credited for nearly all of the photography on the USAP website.) See this page: [17] which is where I got the first quote above. That's a general statement about NSF images, which specifies personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only. -- Moondigger 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I wondered about the copyright too, and found this: http://photolibrary.usap.gov/information2.htm says that all submitted images become property of the NSF, and "All photos are free to the public. Reproduction and distribution are encouraged, however, the photographer and the National Science Foundation must be credited". --Davepape 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
        • But that statement, while saying that reproduction and distribution are encouraged, does not specify what kinds of reproduction and distribution are acceptable. The statements I quoted put limitations on those uses -- personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. -- Moondigger 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The USAP text you point to [18] looks more like internal policy for people at the Antarctic station (note the very bottom, where you're required to sign it), that may have been put on the public website by an overzealous rule-lister - it talks about things like personal use of telephones, videogaming, etc; Information Infrastructure/Resources in that case would just refer to the computers & networks, not intellectual property issues. Your second link [19] gives rules for the Gallery there on nsf.gov [20], it doesn't appear to say they apply to all NSF images everywhere (and USAP, being run by a contractor, could have different rules, even though it seems odd). --Davepape 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
        • It also doesn't say it doesn't apply to all NSF images. At minimum we should attempt to find out if this and similar images are licensed under similar limitations. More generally, as I consider this it seems unlikely the NSF would allow free commercial use of their images. To use a common example, would the NSF support the use of their images on a coffee mug sold by an unaffiliated third party? -- Moondigger 04:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per last time. --jjron 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Moondigger. --KFP 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Unacceptably small, also blown highlights. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Far too small, far too many artefacts in the sky. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, why re-delist a failed delisting so early? In particular, I like the picture, and are happy with both size and quality. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - its worthy. Re-delisting over and over bothers me too. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. 7 Delist, 1 Neutral, 8 Keep --Fir0002 05:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ireland High Cross

Edit 1 New version by User:SG. Joined two images to create one similar to nominee, with JPEG artifacting reduced, larger image dimensions and some color/tone changes.

Edit 2 by Fir0002

The image does not meet the required conditions. It's too small and it does not have the wow factor. Most importantly, it has many pixelation (if you pay attention) around the cross. I'm not sure if they are Jpeg artifacts or not but it's not an FP material. Thank you Arad 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. As nominator Arad 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok I see Edit 2 and like it. So I would say: Repalce With Edit 2 Arad 20:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per the instructions - please notify the uploader of the image. If you check the image's history, you'll see that there is in fact a higher resolution, less compressed version. It was likely altered due to bandwidth concerns. --Davepape 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Wonderful and striking image, well composed, but too small and too many jpeg artifacts. HighInBC 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Very good photo; is "pleasing to the eye". The high res original has a slight cropping problem, though (which could potentially be fixed again). --Davepape 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If there is a larger or better version then that one should be renominated. This one is too small. Arad 03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, if the larger version can be found, it can just be uploaded over this version. No need to renominate the same image when the only difference is size. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes if it's the same picture. I saw the larger version and the lighting is very different. Arad 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep PPGMD 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GarrettRock 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep lovely picture, extremelly pleasing to the eye, slightly too small though. Michaeln36
• Conditional Delist. If we cannot find a larger version this one has to go... I sure do like it though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- great angle, and a great picture, size may not be perfect, but a single factor shouldn't be cause to delist --T-rex 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- meets all criteria. --Ineffable3000 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• PLEAE NOTE. The only factor for the nomination of this photo is not the size. There is a lot of Jpeg artifacts (or pixelation) around the edges of the cross. This image quality is far below the FP average. I agree the shot and angels are good but the quality is poor. Arad 02:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- I think this a really nice picture that captures the concept of the cross really well.Cyberdog 12:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Good enough to keep, nice composition outweighs small size. We don't absolutely need to delist because we have a higher size requirement today. --Janke | Talk 20:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist original or change FP to edit 2 — Ahh! Die, JPEG artifacts, die! Doesn't meet the minimum size requirement, either. Great shot, though. Shame we don't have a higher quality version. ♠ SG →Talk 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just uploaded a new version which I had to make myself, just as the nominated image was made: by joining two separate photographs (one had a guy standing in the middle). ♠ SG →Talk 09:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Fir's edit 2 is great. ♠ SG →Talk 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist or change to new Old one is too small and has too many artifacts. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Too small. - Marmoulak 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
• Replace with new version; great work, SG.--ragesoss 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Original, Strong Replace With Edit 2. I think that the larger version could do with a good edit, though. Fir0002's edit is perfect, as it resembles the orginial greatly, but is from SG's large sized one. NauticaShades^(talk) 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support the edit but can't we fix the lighting to be more like the original? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Um, guys, despite the criticisms listed above, this image is already a featured picture and has run as the picture of the day twice, on June 18, 2004 and and April 29, 2005. So why is it being discussed here now? —Steve Summit (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to misunerstand. We are trying to remove it from Featured Picture status. NauticaShades^(talk) 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support replacing with Edit 2 only --Fir0002 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. Replaced original with Edit 2 --Fir0002 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica satellite globe

Well, shiver me timbers. Antarctica is a cold, cold place.

A higher-resolution replacement, suggested by Night Gyr.

"Full size" image, generated by Dave Pape

The resolution of this image is far too low to be a featured picture. It was promoted back in 2004 when the FP requirements were less strict.

• Delist Strong Replace with Davepape's version. - ♠ SG →Talk 19:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Outstanding! ♠ SG →Talk 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keepnewer version is much better.. All I can say is wow. Davepape's version is so much better. NauticaShades^(talk) 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Replace with Image:Antarctica satellite orthographic.jpg, it's higher res but essentially the same image and meets the requirements. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Replace per Night Gyr. Davepape.--Andrew c 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstaining, as I have another option to throw at you. Neither of the two images really makes full use of the Blue Marble data, which prompted me to make a new one that does. Image:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg is a 6400x6400 orthographic projection of Antarctica; at this size, it's more or less the full 1 km resolution of the satellite data (since orthographic isn't an equal area projection, one can't say that exactly). (FWIW, as far as I can tell Blue Marble Next Generation didn't improve on the resolution of Antarctica, so I stuck with the older data.) --Davepape 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Why is a part of the ocean coloured black in the upper right corner of the continent? It doesn't look like missing data to me as the coastline appears intact. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's in the source image. It looks to me like there was some missing or incorrect data in the land/sea mask that they used to fill the ocean in with a flat blue. I have touched it up manually in response to your & Janke's comments. --Davepape 14:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, since I've done a moderate amount of work on this now, if there's any concern about it being a back-door route to FP, I'd be fine with making the new image a separate nom so more people see it and respond. --Davepape 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Replace wit full-res image, but fix black ocean part first. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kept, but replaced with full-size version. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shuffle

Not FA standard because the photo:

• Has low depth of field
• Much of the photo is generally out of focus
• Too dark
• Black and white
• Generally not very clear, unless you were told what is happening in the photo it may take you a few seconds to see

Basically per all the reasons in the discussion, I still don't believe it is FA standard.

• Delist as nominator.--Andeh 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Despite being B&W, it is an excellent depiction of it's subject. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment just so everyone knows, this image was promoted only 10 days ago. If I counted correctly, there were only 10 voted, 6.5 for, 3 against. As the closing admin noted, it was a fairly close call. Things to keep in mind.--Andrew c 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, it was just promoted. PPGMD 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as closer of the nomination. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per consensus of original nomination. Too soon to nominate for de-listing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is just an attempt to change a result which went against your opinion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is in focus, and this was JUST promoted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Come on! --Dschwen 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I really didn't think this should have been promoted the first time around (since the shuffle itself is in soft focus with the main focus on the near hand), but yeah, this is a bit quick to jump on it for delisting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, might as well get rid of it if we can though. I think the "speedy keep"s are out of line; this image needs to stand or fall on its merits, not how long it's been since the vote. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - It seems everyone is a little embarassed because the picture was promoted. Well, I wasn't here then and think a much better picture of the same subject may well come up one of these days. - Alvesgaspar 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Black and white should not be a factor in the descion to delist an image. So of the greatest pictures of all time were black and white. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I had assumed this would fail when I originally saw it, and never voted. I would definitely have opposed then, and I think it should be delisted now. The fact that only ten days have passed is irrelevant. There is no time limit, and there shouldn't be. -- Moondigger 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing is, I think time should be a factor. If you nominated something enough times for delisting, it might eventually get enough votes in the same way as an infinite number of monkeys producing the entire works of Shakespeare. ;-) If it passed in the first place, then we have to respect that consensus, even if we don't really agree with it. In any case, it looks like consensus will again confirm it is a keeper for now. Perhaps when the dust is settled down the track, it may be a better candidate for delisting. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • trouble is, when you vote keep solely based on the last vote, you're just entrenching a weak past consensus. Very few of the votes here actually attempt to rebut the delisting reasons, which is something I find bad. You're giving the image credit for something that has nothing to do with its actual merit. Benefit of the doubt makes sense on AfD or IfD, where the content's gone if we get rid of it and could always improve, but here it's just a matter of reconsidering whether we think it's "wikipedia's best work." If it's delisted, there's no loss to anyone as there would be with a deletion, so delisting should not be regarded as inherently bad. Does it have the merits or not? That's all that should matter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not perfect technically, perhaps, but it illustrates its subject well - we are an encyclopedia, after all. There's much worse out there with the small bronze star above it. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — It's black and white! Run for the hills! ♠ SG →Talk 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't black and white, it's that the main focus is on the near hand, and not the cards, which really throws off attention from the action which the picture is about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's also the Pepsi can and white thing (handkerchief?) right behind the main subject, plus the lighting. Like I said, I thought this was an obvious failure in the making, and didn't figure I had to vote on it. (Kicks self...) Had I voted, it wouldn't have been promoted in the first place. -- Moondigger 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The original delist nominator put "black and white" as one of their reasons for listing it here. ♠ SG →Talk 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — The focus on the hand emphesises the action of shuffling rather than the shuffling itself. Although this may not be the best picture to illustrate how to shuffle, it is a good picture to illustrate a person shuffling. Change your focus and the meaning of the picture becomes clear ;-) — Editor at Large^(speak) 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as original nominator. I have to say I am amused there are more people voting in the delisting compared to the number of people who voted in the original candidacy listing. In regards to delisters stating "a much better picture of the same subject may well come up one of these days" (emphasis mine) should note that there has been precendent of several images of the same subject being FA at the same time as well as of those some have indeed been delisted but only after they were superceded. A better image may indeed be available in the future, but there is not one now and the current image should not be delisted based on speculation. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet none of them are bothering to address the concerns of those who feel this shouldn't be featured. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The concerns were raised in the initial candidacy and if the answers aren't sufficent to change your vote that isn't grounds for delisting. Of the four people who have voted delist two were opposers in the original candidacy putting forth the same arguments that were rejected by the people who supported the candidacy, one is delisting based on speculation of a currently non-existant images quality and the third is debating the time limit on listing images for delisting. Ignoring the future image reasoning the other three, including yourself as stated in the "might as well get rid of it if we can though", seem to be using the delisting process simply because the result was not what you wished it was. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the position you seem to be taking towards the delisting process. If one thinks an image isn't up to standards, why not delist? What other process are people who think an image isn't up to standards supposed to use? Obviously opening a ton of votes in succession is disruptive and pointless, but you seem to be denying the basic validity of delisting. WP:CCC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The position I am taking is one of observation and, at least to my own vision, comparison to the comparitive featured article review. To my knowledge a featured article would not be reviewed for nearly its entire time on wikipedia, and the ones that are are not ten days after promotion. The debate of time frame is one of merit as if there is no time frame then the concept of "bad faith nomination" due to time is void, though it is a valid complaint and has been used for years on wikipedia to prevent people constantly listing items for deletion, deletion reviews, promotion, promotion reviews or other such acts and counteracts. I am not here to deny the validity of delisting, but to put forth an observation and rebuttal to the "delist" points which include the original nomination in question. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check out WP:FAR, it has nearly as many entires as WP:FAC. If you check out signpost, we're defeaturing articles as fast as they're being added -- last week had four up and four down. Everything is subject to review here. I was going to eventually nominate this one for delisting, because I felt it hadn't had broad enough attention the first time around, but this nom came so quickly that everyone jumped on him for "bad faith." It's not bad faith if you genuinely feel that the image doesn't deserve to be featured. We've got like five votes here with no reason but ad hominem on the nom. You're right that jumping on things immediately like this is bad for wikipedia, so I intended to wait. However, you shouldn't assume that this nom is a bad thing inherently, I think it is bad mainly because of people's reactions to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing this to WP:FAR is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Articles change constantly; pictures don't. If consensus says the picture met the standards at the time of its promotion and the standard haven't changed since then and the picture hasn't changed since then, what grounds are there for delisting? I tried to start a discussion about this point on the talk page but apparently nobody was interested. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One should not nominate images for delisting that they don't think it meets standards, they should nomintate pictures that they don't think would meet group consensus as being an FP. Since it just passed FP, it is safe to assume the consensus does think this image is FP. 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not only to I believe this is too early, but:
  • The low depth of field does does not harm the detial of the actual shuffling.
  • The rest of the photo is distracting, and can, if not should, be out of focus.
  • The subject in question is well lighted, not too dark.
  • The black and white, although slightly detrimental to the encyclopedic value, is rather harmless.
  • It is quite clear if one reads the article it is in.

--NauticaShades 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep low depth of field is not a problem. It's the main quality of this picture full depth of field would make it confused ! Ericd 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all other keep votes, their reasons, and any reason that may come after this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above and original nomination. - jlao ⁰⁴ 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hansom Cab

A small picture of a Hansom cab

As delightful and charming a picture this is, at 640px by 480px it's far too small by modern FPC standards.

• Nominate and delist. - CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 15:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, far too small and not detailed enough Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. If the only reason for delisting is that it's too small, why not just ask User:Solipsist if he can supply a larger one? howcheng {chat} 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• This has been done but unfortunately [[User:Solipsist|] remains adamant that he does not wish to upload a larger image. Whilst this is obviously entirely up to him, it does unfortunately mean that an image that (perhaps unlike some which he highlighted) would definitely benefit from being available in a size where you can see greater detail looks like it might well be delisted. A shame. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't believe size is a good reason, 'per se', to delist older pictures. I also think this is a delightful and charming picture, and it will continue to be indepenedentely of technological evolution. - Alvesgaspar 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist too small, not amazing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Alvesgaspar --Fir0002 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Size alone is not a sufficient reason for delisting. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's a shame Solipsist won't provide a bigger version just to make a point. In my opinion, this is definitely not the time and place to do it, but it is his right. However, isn't the only criteria, and I we can't delist it just for that. NauticaShades 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's just doing it to make a point, he seems to have gotten this picture from someone else to upload, so I don't think he has a higher res version Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's the photographer. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

ah, that's what I get for not actually following the links in the file description. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delist If a higher resolution is available. The picture doesn't have the WOW factor anyway and if the creator is not going to upload a higher resolution, he won't have the chance to renominate it for FP again. Size is not enough to delist, but If we are sure that a higher resolution is available, then this should go. would Support If the author would just make a little effort and upload the bigger one. I agree with User:Nauticashades. By the way, the author has so many other amazing photos that can't become FP because of their size. Such a pity. --Arad 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture (4 delist / 3 keep / 1 neutral). --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Buddhabrot

Deeply iterated Buddhabrot

This picture no longer meets the criteria for WP:FPC and should be delisted.

• It is not a high quality picture. It was rendered with cheap software.
• The image is way below 1000 px. (even though it's software rendered)
• There are other better Mandelbrot set pictures. (one is already featured, and one is a nominee)
• It has a free license.
• It adds value to only 1 article.
• It is accurate.
• Doesn't look very good compared to other complex analysis images.
• It has a good caption.
• It is neutral.

• Delist. - Ineffable3000 05:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It could easily be rerendered with higher resolution by the linked code. Your only complaint seems to be resolution, and that can be easily fixed. "Cheap software" is irrelevant. Many of our best images were created with free tools like Inkscape, POV-Ray and Blender. Mediawiki itself is cheap. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Many of our FPs only illustrate one article. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I would choose to keep it if the resolution was changed. --Ineffable3000 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Night Gyr and Howcheng Imaninjapirate 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. High quality image, except for size. I tried to draw a larger version myself but couldn't figure the parameters used by User:Evercat. I have left a message to him. --Bernard 17:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I prefer the slightly prettier version here. Snurks^TC 08:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Size shouldn't be the only reason to delist something, and it meets all the other criteria. NauticaShades 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I know fractals are very impressive, but their very nature allows for very high resolutions. I would not support a fractal image unless it was very high resolution. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Beatiful image of a less common type of fractal. I'll agree to delist when a better resolution comes up.Alvesgaspar 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Epicyclic gear ratios

Epicyclic gear ratios

Although a very nice picture, it's very small. At 290x154 (and not animated) it's not even in the right ballpark or size.

Image created by User:Wapcaplet

• Nominate and delist. - Vicarious 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sanity has returned to my world knowing that the tiny image was a clerical error. I remove my vote and now abstain from the issue. Vicarious 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The image's resolution is actually 1908x1026 px. Perhaps there was a software bug that resulted in the previous revision being displayed? --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is an image by the same filename at the Commons, that one is 290x154. I'll upload the high res version to the Commons. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. The size has been shown not to be an issue, but this image would be much clearer head-on, or at only a slight tilt. Anyone want to make a replacement? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Puma5d04 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As the nominator recognizes this is a misake, the picture is quite large Alvesgaspar 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I think since the nomination was in error that this can just be removed and kept. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Bevo 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

HorseAndPlough

Higher resolution version.

This image does not meet the size requirements and has visible compression artifacts. There is a larger version at Farmer plowing.jpg but in my opinion, it is still not good enough to be a featured picture.

• Nominate and delist Mahahahaneapneap 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delist The picture has some artifacts and is slightly less than the required size, which is understandable with only 96k of information to work with. It still looks good, but not FP good, close though. Keep High res version. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Replace with the larger one, though. NauticaShades 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just replaced the image in the 'Plow' article, with the higher res version. I like the composition; it shows the action of plowing and the effort of the driver. --Bridgecross 01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bridgecross. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it does illustrate the topic well. And it's not that bad of an image. – b_jonas 17:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep high resolution version. Alvesgaspar 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep high res version, seems fine to me. Terri G 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep high res version. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept (high res version) as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UK Roundabout

I don't know. This one became an FP back in 2004, possibly because it might have been one of the first animations on Wikipedia. Sadly, this just looks inadequate to me by today's standards. The animation is choppy and it's not that well drawn to begin with.

Recommend delist. --DaveOinSF 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep enc value. Choppy animation is not a limitation of the artist, but a technical limitation of gif format from getting too big (although it is slowly fading currenlty). --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is fine, and quite encyclopedic. If someone can produce a better one, though, that would be welcome. NauticaShades 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Bob talk 11:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I love it, though if a superior animation of the same concept can be made then it could be replaced. Pstuart84 12:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why everyone is driving in the wrong side of the road? ;-) Alvesgaspar 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist unless prettified. OK, I haven't worked with animated gifs since 1996 but I don't see what the limitations are to make this less choppy. The image is 240K, so size can't be the problem, neither can it be the 256 color limit. This is still a moderately fun animation, but it's no longer FP quality. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep trialsanderrors raises a good point about file size. This image is actually only 87kb, and we have FPs over 1MB all the time. We could have 10x the framerate and still come in under a meg. The limitations of animated gifs are mainly in color and filesize, not smoothness. If this were coming up for FP today, it would not pass, but I don't think it's so shabby as to warrant delisting. Also here is the original nomination. Has anyone tried contacting the creator to see if they can make a smoother version? --Dgies 08:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Creator update The image creator, User:Mintguy appears to have left the project a couple years ago. Image updater User:Fredrik is active but just announced a wikibreak. --Dgies 08:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oddly enough, the Non-UK version is 249K. That's the version I was looking at. ~ trialsanderrors 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above points. Sharkface217 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Historical value alone should not be used as an excuse to keep an inadequate image however the quality of this animation in addition to it's historical and informational aspects are enough to warrant keeping it around... though by all means someone should endeavor to create an updated version if possible. Cat-five - talk 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic, and it's OK. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Mailer Diablo. (User • Talk)
• Weak Keep per above. I'd like to see a higher quality version or a redrawn version, but until then, I don't feel there is enough reason to delist.--Andrew c 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retained Raven4x4x 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fort Jefferson

Low resolution

Who on Earth does the PotD thing? It's getting sort of lame.

The picture isn't as awful as a lot we try to delist.. but it would never make it today on account of the resolution and because of how "unspectacular" it is

• Nominate: Delist per above drumguy8800 C T 08:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, it's a great picture, but it's a bit oversharpened. I'd love a higher-res version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I schedule the PsOTD. This was promoted unanimously (see discussion) and I didn't find any faults with it that would make me think there was any reason to overturn the original consensus. The resolution is fine (1200x796), BTW. If you don't like the old FPs, I suggest you nominate them for delisting before they get scheduled as reruns (I'm currently pulling them from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 03). howcheng {chat} 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Howcheng, keep up the good work, you are right, there isn't anything worth pulling the picture over. Drumguy, if you think its lame, help out. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this is unique enough that it needs a replacement before it deserves delisting. gren グレン 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, resolution is high enough for the subject, unique perspective. Noclip 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep-Resolution is a bit poor, but beautiful picture. Booksworm Talk to me! 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per incredible picture. Sharkface217 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It may not pass if it was listed today, but it does not fail the current criteria. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It does meet the criteria. By the way, please don't add biased captions to delist noms. NauticaShades 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Copy and paste the follwing code onto your user page to get the PotD seven days in advance:

{{Wikipedia:POTD row/{{#time:F j, Y|+7 days}}}}

That way you can nominate problematic pictures ahead of time. ~ trialsanderrors 10:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retained as FP Raven4x4x 05:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Red-crested Pochard

Red-crested Pochard

Another image which isn't terrible by any means, but I'm pretty sure that if nominated now this would be almost unanimously opposed; we simply have plenty of much higher-quality bird photos and this one, although a workmanlike enough shot, is certainly no longer an example of Wikipedia's best photography. There's a lot of noise/dithering and the slow shutter speed at a long telephoto setting (1/60s, 400mm) has introduced noticeable motion blur. Has been on the main page once in June 2005.

• Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a good picture. It just needs a tad bit of touching up. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This image has already been 'touched up' during its nomination; it is impossible to recover detail which is not already present in an image so the motion blur is unfixable. This version has already had some noise reduction and any more would most likely make it unacceptably soft. --YFB ¿ 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep True there is motion blur, but the composition of the bird and the reflections is so attractive that I want to keep it. --Bridgecross 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the outcome of Wikipedia Talk:Featured picture candidates#Delisting, please remember that when considering a nomination for delisting, the image should be compared to the current featured picture criteria. If you would not support this image as a new nomination then you should consider voting to delist. --YFB ¿ 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist The water is really unattractive, and not much detail showing on the bird. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Attractive image which does not contain major flaws necessitating delisting --Fir0002 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fir, would you mind elaborating on your reasons for keeping (beside your well-documented opinion on delistings in general)? --YFB ¿ 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) --YFB ¿ 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Still needs some touch ups but after that I think it will be a keeper. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Ack YFB, the fullsize looks blurry. Would be shot down instantly today. --Dschwen 11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noclip 05:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate - what is your rationale for voting to keep this image? --YFB ¿ 23:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems that warrant delisting. Noclip 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --YFB ¿ 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist The duck looks fine to me, but I get a strong whiff of Photoshopping from the water surface, which looks more like oil slick than water. ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a pretty duck but the water looks unnatural --froth^{T C} 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Attractive image, no major problems -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per YFB and antilived. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Retained as FP Raven4x4x 01:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Columbia launching

Space Shuttle Columbia launching

Edit 1 by Fir0002 - cleaned up image

Edit 2 by Andrew c to reduce noise

Promoted back in 2004. Grainy, and looks like it went through some kind of dithering filter. Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and delist. - Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• delist You're right, it almost looks like a scan from a magazine. --Bridgecross 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Have you considered that the graininess could be caused by using very fast film so as to avoid motion blur? --Dgies 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is the first image of the first shuttle mission. Considering the date (1981) and historical value of it, it deserves FP statue. BUT, the graininess is way too much. I tried to reduce it with Photoshop but it caused other problems (such as blur on some very grainy parts). Maybe Fir can give it a try. I might retry. Although there is much better images of shuttle launch of course, this one has a historical importance though. Arad 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Historically valuable. Sharkface217 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Either with preference for replacement with my edit (Edit 1) --Fir0002 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but replace with edit 1 - Well done, Fir!. --Janke | Talk 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep edit 1. It's still very grainy, and the exhaust is blown. But very historically significant.--HereToHelp 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement with edit, the edit blurred out a lot of detail while trying to get rid of the grain--the top of the shuttle looks shiny smooth and the lettering on the wing is blurry. It reminds me of a hyper-retouched model with shiny smooth skin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is simply a picture of a highly important moment in the history of mankind Booksworm Talk to me! 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Edit 1, as the editing is definately an improvement. --RandomOrca2 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment edit 2. I saw Fir's work and thought it looked more noisey in places, and that the artificial sharpening was overdone. So, I gave a try and reducing the noise.--Andrew c 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't care which one you keep, but absolutely keep it! It's really the only picture we'll get of the white ET. → JARED ^(t)  22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Original - Per historical exemption. Flaws aren't that bad. Edit 1 loses resolution and manages to blur the shuttle too much. Edit 2 is overly retouched and the clouds are very fake looking. --Dgies 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that my edit made the clouds look weird, so I have reuploaded an earlier version that retains some of the 'helpful' noise in the clouds. --Andrew c 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I prefer the first one, like people above have said we need to keep this picture in out database.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You realize that the image will still be around, just not marked as featured anymore? This isn't deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons stated above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays! 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep! Great picture. Peeps are too picky. --Tobyw87 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (the original one) because of historical value. --Bricktop 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep edit 1 or 2 I thought the grain in the original were stars at first glance! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Retained the original image Raven4x4x 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted

Image:William Cranch.jpg

I think this image is copyrighted. See: http://www.photorescuer.com/celebrities2_n.shtml

The original image was in the public domain. The only available version of the original image is significantly damaged. This restoration company redrew, cleaned up, and changed a large portion of the image. See their FAQ: "All content on this web site are protected by a U.S. Copyright. The content, including but not limited to pictures may not be downloaded or used in any way without our written consent."

• Nominate. --BRIAN0918 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support de-listing. A major retouch work can be copyrighted. --Janke | Talk 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference that describes how to convert a public domain offering into a copyrighted work by retouching? - Bevo 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support de-listing, regardless if it is still public domain. It's just a slightly ugly, unspectactular image. The original, though - aesthetically, it's much more interesting. I'd be more likely to support that for FP status... Zafiroblue05 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small, unremarkable. enochlau (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Copyright issues and image size. --Dschwen 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FPC status removed per consensus. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yarra_river_near_city_medium.jpg

As mentioned in an above nomination, this picture does not hold up to standard anymore (blown out sky, dark foreground, picture size too low), and it is not used in a single article.

• Nominate. --Dschwen 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support de-listing as per above. Wouldn't de-list all images of this size, though. 700x1000 is good enough, if the image is really stunning, and no larger is available. --Janke | Talk 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right (abt. the size) but here it's just too many factors combined. --Dschwen 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - The fact that it isn't in an article is good enough for me. Broken S 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist its washed out and not anything spectacular.. + not up to standards. bag it. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist on the grounds that it is not linked to an actual article. TomStar81 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Has to have an article DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist on quality. - Bevo 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per the criteria that featured pictures must be used in an article. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It was actually I that removed it from the Yarra River article originally, as I didn't feel it was spectacular in any way, and I replaced it with another featured picture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Its a nice picture, but it doesn't show anything clearly. I nominated it for delisting in October 2004. -- Solipsist 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

FPC status removed per consensus. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Common_clownfish.jpg

Common Clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) in their Magnificent Sea Anemone (Heteractis magnifica) home.

Small size and garish colours. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Insert witty Nemo comment here. --Dschwen 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Size is one of the problems. Colors are blown out, not only the white of the fish, therer is also barely any structure in the orange. Sharpness is borderline, a larger version will not help. --Dschwen 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Samsara _contrib ^talk 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist for small size, unless we get a bigger one; the white on the fish also looks overexposed. But you are joking about the garishness, right? Mark^{your words} 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Agree with above. Alr 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. See my comments in Anolemeal below. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist ACK Mark Calderwood 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist for colour (over exposed) and size. I've added a note to the uploader's talk page in case a larger one is available since most objections so far seem to be size related. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist overexposed. --liquidGhoul 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Anolemeal6127.jpg

Anolis carolinensis eating a dronefly

Image is not sharp (camera motion blur?). Also compare with Image:P1010027.jpg which is a better featured image of the same species. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Very unsharp. --Janke | Talk 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist ACK Janke Calderwood 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Samsara _contrib ^talk 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Not up to the current standard anymore. --Dschwen 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I want to be charitable here. It's not as sharp as current FPs, but it is fairly big for an August 04 FP, and the image itself is strikingly natural, far more so than the other FP, which is pretty to look but boring aside from that. Zafiroblue05 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree, totally, with above Sotakeit 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to both above votes: A good friend of mine has had these in captivity for a number of years, and I can tell you with some certainty that a shot like this would not be too difficult to get in the wild, especially if you're using a bait fly in typical habitat. This will make it relatively easy to get a sharp image, too, as you can position your tripod in front of the bait and be relatively sure of a good shot. These animals are fairly curious, and especially males are not too shy. In fact, captive ones may voluntarily come to sit on your hand if you've got warm hands. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But even if this picture is staged to some extent, it is still a more interesting staging than the other FP. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Remember, FPs should be the very best Wikipedia has to offer. This means that older stuff will have to be delisted, as requirements change. Also, delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s). I am in favor of delisting all small, unsharp FPs, in order to remove them from cluttering the collection of new, better ones. Delisting does not equal deleting ! In fact, I think it is such an important distinction that I added it to the voting instructions. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist; too blurry. - Pureblade | ^Θ 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - not up to standard.--Deglr6328 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sydney_opera house.jpg

Sydney Opera House

• Seems to be poorly compressed with artifacts. Also probably a bit small. Alr 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. enochlau (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's a nice shot, wish it was bigger. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Not striking at all to me. Mstroeck 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Mikeo 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. --Dschwen 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist compression too high, artifacts Glaurung 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bluesky.jpg

Blue sky

A nice picture, but tiny by current FP standards. We also have a superior FP picture of the same type of clouds at Image:GoldenMedows.jpg. Delist. Zafiroblue05 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Agreed. Alr 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Too small Broken S 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep small, but nice. --Lewk_of_Serthic 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - res to low. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist yep, tiny ~ Veledan • Talk 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • withdrawn my delist pending news from Denni. This is a wonderful and rare sky so it would be a shame to lose it. I apologise for not thinking to ask. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist too small --Mikeo 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, as above. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a good illustration of cumulus clouds (looks like perfect gliding weather). However, this is a pretty old FP and comes from an era when we limited image sizes. It would probably worth askying User:Denni whether there is a larger version available. A similar situation occured with Image:Mackerelskybig.jpg not so long ago and that resulted in a higher res upload. -- Solipsist 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Solipsist. I was feeling kind of discouraged when this got nominated, as it comes from a time when we were discouraged from uploading large images. It is very, very rare to see such pure cumulus humilis skies, and despite the fact this photo is close to 20 years old, I have not seen such a pure day since. This image comes from a slide, and I would be happy to provide a larger image, but I will need some time to find the original. If people can bear with me, I will provide it ASAP. Denni ☯ 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, too small. If you can upload a larger version, I'd vote keep, but 288x442 is definitely too small. It's a beautiful sky, though. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Samsara _contrib ^talk 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until Deni can find a larger version before deciding on this, as it seems that size is the only concern here. Raven4x4x 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be inappropriate to delist as per process and have the high res one go through FPC again. Because the high res one might be noisy etc, or have something else that people object to. enochlau (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delist current version, keep if larger image is found. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an outstanding weather photo which perfectly illustrates Cumulus humilis clouds. --Eraticus 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted If Deni can find a larger version there will be no problem with it going through FPC again. We just need to clear this backlog. :) Raven4x4x 07:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Garden Orb Weaver

Australian Garden Orb Weaver

The image is only 726x603 px, and we have a better picture of an Orb-Weaver spider featured. Compare the image with this (superior) image Image:Orb_weaver_black_bckgrnd03_crop.jpg. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Fir has obviously gone out and improved on his own photo. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Neutrality^talk 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist since there is a clearly superior picture of the same subject that has reached featured status. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist since there is a better image available. --Janke | Talk 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist better image is available. Mikeo 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's still a good picture, even if there might be a better one of the same subject. I still like it enough to keep. Oh well. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Nevermind... too small. I do like the picture though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue morpho butterfly

please check full size version

The thumbnail is pretty, and the image seems to be used a lot. But the actual image is only 800px wide and appears very washed out. The high ref-count is due to inclusion in a stub template. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist I don't mind the resolution, but the photo is blurry. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Retain as per my other arguments that we can't retroactively apply new standards to old noms when the photo itself is not changed. The whole point of this process so far and the reason why until recently there was no delisting is that unless an entirely new photo is taken (which in itself would have to go through the FP process) there is no way to make more than minor fixes to the photo. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Butterfly has no abdomen. Neutrality^talk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Extremely blurry. This is a very proper delisting nomination! There doesn't need to be a better image available - delisting will not delete this picture, it will still be in its article(s). --Janke | Talk 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Mikeo 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Does look blurry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pentakisdodecahedron

Pentakisdodecahedron

Not used in any article. It was inserted into Pentakis dodecahedron several times, and was always kicked out. The animation aspect is nice but does not significantly increase the understanding of the shape. Colors are not exactly pretty (but that's probably very subjective). Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Boring subject, and it is missing a vital criterion. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Due to fact that it does not meet the criteria of being used in an article. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Neutrality^talk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per nom. --Janke | Talk 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist see above Mikeo 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Machu-Picchu.jpg

Machu-Picchu.jpg

Another one from March 2004 informally promoted. Not a patch on the new candidate. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist, a much better version is about to be promoted. And even if it weren't, the pic is much to small. --Dschwen 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist: per above. --Hetar 07:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. Much better version will most probably a FP. Mikeo 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm re-nominating the (fixed) panorama. --Janke | Talk 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist too small, pano is Betta!. -Ravedave 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The panorama is better - Glaurung 06:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Agreed Alr 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Machu-Picchu.jpg has been delisted (and the new one promoted today, too) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mtl-metro-map.png

Mtl-metro-map.png

SVG reinforcements have arrived!

I can't find any evidnce of this ever having been promoted or discussed. And anyway, it's a small tube map. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably was - we just didn't have proper archiving back then. ed g2s • talk 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I spent the whole of yesterday afternoon searching the histories. The other pics I nominated for delisting took some finding too - none of the pics were shown in their respective discussions which made it tough ~ Veledan • Talk 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's a small tube map which is an essential contribution to the Montreal Metro article. I'm sure drawing a map like this is a lot more work than snapping some of the pictures which can be seen at WP:FP. Anyway, the file format is a knock-out so delist PNG, but keep if... an SVG version is provided (and the copyright notice is removed from the image, this belongs on the image page or the SVG source as a comment if you wish). --Dschwen 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Odd copyright info and rather small. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The copyright isn't odd, it's GFDL (someone should clip off the copyright notice on the bottom). Neutral to delisting, keep it if an SVG is found.BrokenSegue 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Odd copyright info... on the image. ---LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I "found" (i.e. made) an SVG version, and I can testify that it really is a lot of work :) -- grm_wnr Esc 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The SVG version ommits accents such as on Collège. If they were reincluded I might support its replacement. BigBlueFish 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm... As far as I can tell, it doesn't (at least I see one on the Orange Line station Du Collège - is there another place where I missed one?) -- grm_wnr Esc 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Eek... my mistake. On the default Wikipedia SVG rendering though, the accents are all only a couple of pixels, barely enough to show what type of accent they are. I don't know if a different font could be used to improve this. At any rate, I suppose the current SVG is acceptable seeing as it does have the accents. BigBlueFish 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No reason for delisting. Quality is good. It is illustrative. Plus the effort needed to make this one was most probably much higher than for some of the supported snapshots above. Mikeo 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Promote the SVG and delist the png. BrokenSegue 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep edit I cant find any missing accents... -Ravedave 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. A FP should impress and create interest in the article. I just don't see any diagram do that. --P199 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. For a very good diagram, see the recent "leaf morphology" FP - wow! --Janke | Talk 07:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Not goose-bump inducing... Seriously, this is good in its article, but not so stunningly good it deserves FP. It's too cramped, the typography and layout is not "the very best WP has to offer". --Janke | Talk 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Janke. enochlau (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Good diagram but not featured quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Good, not great. ed g2s • talk 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mtl-metro-map.svg was delisted (7/3) - Great that we got a .svg version out of it though! Thanks to Grm_wnr for that ~ Veledan • Talk 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dostoevsky 1872.jpg

Nice picture, but very small - it was promoted a long time ago. I can't find a bigger version on the internet (except for one slightly-larger image that is inferior to this one in terms of color). I put a message on the uploaders talk page a while ago, with no response.

• Delist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Much too small. —Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist due to size. bcasterline t 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dostoevsky_1872.jpg has been delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sunset Images by Samoano

On Featured pictures visible (I didn't check the others), there are 6 sunset images by User:Samoano under the Weather section. There are no links from a subpages of Featured picture candidates for any of the images, thus, implying that it was never nominated here and was simply added to the FP visible page. (I didn't want to simply take it off the page, just in case I was wrong.) Looking back at User:Samoano's contribution page, he added those images. User:Fir0002 already informed him, but recieved no reply. Here are the images:

• 
  3
• 
  4
• 5
  5

• Nominate and Delist All Six Images —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 06:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist immediately. No need to vote, they were improperly added. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delist. It can't be claimed that the candidacy page was somehow "lost" since the black borders would've been edited out had the pictures gone through FPC. Redquark 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist The nice thing about photos loaded to the commons is that they do not officially exist on Wikipedia, one must "create" the page when adding the fpc and fp templates for the purpose of seeking featured status for them on wikipedia, and these photos, according to the red image links, have never been edited. Therefore, they have never been officially listed here for featured picture consideration. TomStar81 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist --Janke | Talk 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Done I removed the pics. -Ravedave 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Red Sky at Night

This image is pretty good; however, it should be delisted considering the fact that it is only 288 pixels × 401 pixels.

Actual size

• Nominate and Delist —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 05:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Agree with User:Black and White. --Windsok 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Agree. --Janke | Talk 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Not big enough MosheA 14:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist.--Mad Max 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara Statue

Che Guevara Statue

Not used in any articles, subject cut off, low "worshipful" angle.

• Support Delisting. Redquark 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Not a very encyclopedic picture. -- bcasterline • talk 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Flaws as stated. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, not in any article. --Janke | Talk 07:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Not in any article, not very interesting --MosheA 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist What the ... --Mad Max 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Blurry, blown-out highlights.

• Support Delisting. Redquark 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The highlights don't bother me as much as the uneven tilt. -- bcasterline • talk 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (author). Tilt was a major consideration during the original nomination, and the image was corrected for tilt very carefully. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Terrible ISO noise, blown highlights, poor detail and sharpness, etc. --Windsok 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, although I think the problems are sensor or compression artefacts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Tilt is of less concern, but too blurry for today's standards. --Janke | Talk 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nomination. --Mad Max 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too much ISO noise and too blurry. Janderk 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Suit

David Scott's space suit for Apollo 15

The dimensions of this image are respectable. Going back to its FPC Nomination, I learned the image was a panorama. However, the subject is cut off, which I think really takes away a lot from the image. Furthermore, there are various places where the highlights are blown out. For example, notice the shoes, his helmet, and the ceiling.

• Nominate and Delist. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Bad lighting, the "fisheye effect" is not appropriate here, and the reflection in the helmet is just too messy. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Just a weird perspective, it looks strange. And, as mentioned, cut-off at the side. A shame though. --jjron 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A good high res stitch. Promoted with +9/-0. ed g2s • talk 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

... almost two years ago, 8/2004. FPC "standards" have changed enormously since then. --Janke | Talk 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. This is not a compelling picture, the subject is at an odd angle, bad cropping, non-standard size. Witty lama 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per above. --Mad Max 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Fairly unattractive. -- bcasterline • talk 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I don't think the perspective was necessary. I've been to the museum and there is more than enough space to move further back and avoid that perspective. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No way am I supporting the delisting of this. If there's a better image that's already here or can be immediately uploaded, then I'll change my vote, but this is a historically important image, and is an example of Wikipedia's coverage of important subjects with great photos. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. This image is in NO way historically important, the exact same shot can be taken by anyone else any day of the week. Historic this ain't. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but can that shot be uploaded to Wikipedia any day of the week? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Anyone who visits the museum and happens to take a photo of it can, yeah. I should have done so when I was there but taking a photo of every significant object in the museum wasn't my priority at the time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It CAN be, but that doesn't mean it WILL be. But that's irrelevant anyway. The point is, your whole argument is specious. A "historically important" image is one where it is impossible to replace or reproduce. The 1906 Earthquake panorama at the top of the page is an example. No one can take that photo anymore. This photo here is easily and trivially replaced, hence the picture is not historically important. The SUBJECT is historically important, to be sure, but (as I've stated) the flaws in the picture make it inelligible (IMO) for FP status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• If it's been cropped, is a revert possible? --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above.say1988 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Bevo 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I was actually only in this section to list this image myself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Due to bad lighting and mainly the cut off. Janderk 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, there are far worse pictures in FP.--Zambaccian 11:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Osiris planet

Cropped image, currently featured

Full image, currently in article HD 209458 b

The first image is featured, but does not appear in any article. The second image is a de-cropped version, appearing in HD 209458 b. We can either switch featured status from one to the other, or delist it as a cheesy "artist's conception."

• I say delist. - ragesoss 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. cheesy "artist's conception." describes it perfectly. Not being used in an article also is a knock-out criteria. --Dschwen 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too artificial. --Janke | Talk 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Just a somewhat pretty computer-generated image. No encyclopedic value. Redquark 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per above. --Mad Max 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm not too strongly opposed to artist's conceptions, but this doesn't appear in any articles anyway. -- bcasterline • talk 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sand sculpture

Sand sculpture

At only 300px wide this is far too small IMO.

• Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Unacceptably small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Small resolution and bad framing. Shame, this is a great subject, could be a great photo. --liquidGhoul 08:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's all cut off anyway. --jjron 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist due to size. -- bcasterline • talk 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I feel bad delisting this photo as it is one of my favourites, but the size...just is not up to current standards. TomStar81 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I want to say keep, as it's one of my favourite featured pictures, but it won't make any difference, and I can't bring myself to say Delist. I've contacted the original photographer to ask for a larger version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. way too small, and cut off. --Dschwen 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist While the subject of the photo is astounding, the photography itself is far from it. The photo is too small, cut off, and off center. -- Nilington 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. --Pharaoh Hound 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted (*cry*) I loved this one too ~ Veledan • Talk 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Onsen in Nachikatsuura, Japan

Onsen

I find the image quality on this pic too poor for me to think of it as one of the finest images Wiki has on offer.

• Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Nothing special. --liquidGhoul 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Yeah, this could be anywhere ~ Veledan • Talk 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Snapshot -Glaurung 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Don't see the encyclopaedic value. Other shots on the page are more informative. --jjron 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Vacation photo. Somewhat interesting, but certainly not FP quality. -- bcasterline • talk 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fine photo illustrates rotenburo quite well. High quality. Fg2 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Fg2. TomStar81 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (note: I took the photo) -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Sorry, but I think the image quality is much too poor. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. as per bcasterline. Witty lama 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Very poor image quality. --Windsok 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spot Fetcher

Spot Fetcher

Burnt highlights, low res, poor focus/sharpness

• Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist As above --liquidGhoul 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delist. Fir is right of course but I also have sympathy with the reasons it was promoted. Alas, probably not enough to keep it as an FP ~ Veledan • Talk 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As above. More to the point I support delisting the whole Spot Fetcher article. What's the point of it - can I make an article about my pet? Cute dog though. --jjron 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above, though it is a nice shot. -- bcasterline • talk 12:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Is this what the standards used to be? My God. Delist per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It is interesting to see the comments that Veledan linked to above. It just shows how much pickier FP is now. Witty lama 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Very cute, however it is too small, and too blurry. --Pharaoh Hound 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think the shortcomings are sufficiently severe. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• delist size and everything else above.say1988 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Coca Cola Bubbles

Coca-cola bubbles macro

Reasons for delisting: Poor focus, small image, too abstract, not particularly illustrative

• Delist. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Diliff.-- moondigger 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Unencyclopedic, too small. --Pharaoh Hound 00:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Sadly Delist - Lovely pic as it is, but sadly not encyclopedic or hi res enough to stay. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Cool but delist As above, small and doesn't really display much. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It doesn't do much for the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. per all --Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fawn in Forest

Fawn in Forest

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Not very high-quality, not very alluring

• Delist --Fir0002 08:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Fir0002. --moondigger 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist --MosheA 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist say1988 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Awful pic, don't know how it ever got through. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist As above, seems odd this ever made it through (even under older standards). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I took this picture, not really sure why I thought it was good at the time. Maybe because I was there and it was crazy that the thing was that close. There was actually a better picture than this one, that is to say, it might have been better had there not been a huge ugly tree in the way. I really need to get a camera with a decent lens and proper manual focus one of these days. --Elfer 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm surprised this got through, especially so recently (Sept 05). Having said which, it would be a thrill to take the photo. --jjron 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mt Cook

Mt Cook

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Lens glare, plane wing visible

• Delist Plane wing is a problem --Fir0002 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist --MosheA 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per Fir0002 --Pharaoh Hound 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - glares off cockpit, wing in photo, bad general quality. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Glare, wing, window reflection, more than enough to delist over. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Window reflections and wing. Actually if you check the original promotion, even that looks a little dodgy to me. --jjron 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, mainly due to the reflection. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LCD Pixels

I realize this just got promoted, but doesn't this explicitly fail WP:WIAFP #4? Because it uses the Wikipedia logo (which is copyrighted), it cannot be a free use image. I think this is very well done but unfortunately one of the most basic criteria cannot be fulfilled.

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You do realize that the image description page reads, "This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation," and "Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL," right? Since the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and copyright extends to derivative works (which this is), it seems clear to me that this by definition cannot be free use. Couldn't this image just be redone with a different background? howcheng {chat} 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've asked User:Danny for an opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation. howcheng {chat} 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It uses very little of the logo, and the appearance is different enough from the original logo that it should be fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-28 01:01
• Keep. Ack Brian. --Dschwen 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist It violates #4. Wikimedia doesn't release their images under a free licenese. Therefor, the use of the image to illustrait a point like this could, at best, be fair use. Fair use is expressively prohibited. Heck, if its not fair use its by permission on wikimedia websites only, which still means it doesn't have a free license. Kevin_b_er 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist (Creator of Zoom edit) it is a derivative work of a copyrighted pic, therefore not free. Though fair-use would probably fly... [21] its fine though we'll just have User:Diliff to get another shot taken of somethign free, and then anyone can add a zoom box. -Ravedave 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Derivative works that are significantly different from the original can be considered separate works, not under the copyright. This one easily fits that description. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:32
• Delist. I am sure the creator can make a new version without questions about copyrights.say1988 14:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per the prohibition on fair use. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Statue

Lincoln Statue

A thumbnail of the original, unaltered image.

Cropped, noise-reduced, converted to monochrome.

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Too blurry, and again, not very alluring

• Neutral --Fir0002 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• delist It is very dark there, but anyone with a tripod and Cannon 5/10/20/30D could get a much better picture. -Ravedave 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This one might be fixed with a bit of Photoshop work. I could give it a try tonight. -- moondigger 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is interesting. The original image was much bigger and included people, so the version that was promoted to FP status was a crop in the first place. I cropped even more, got rid of most of the noise, and converted to black & white because the image was almost a monochrome anyway. I played with the file a little while, and don't remember all the tweaks. In any case, the result is better, I think... but I'm not sure whether it's FP material. I also don't know whether an edit this severe would be considered the same image for FP purposes, or if it would require a new nomination. Anyway, there it is. -- moondigger 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Just not up to standards.say1988 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delist FP, nominate B&W edit. Good picture, but original is not up to standards. Support a Wikipedian going to the Lincoln Memorial with a tripod and Canon 5/10/20/30D to take a new version. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  I'll make an attempt today. But perhaps it would be better on a weekday. hmm. --Gmaxwell 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, I have pictures. Not as much or as nice as I'd like because it was crowded and I was harassed by security because apparently there is some material difference between pocket cameras with their obnoxious flashes that half the tourists have and my obviously terrorism related equipment (the national park service is going to enjoy my irate letter...). In any case, I'll go through my spoils tonight and see if there is anything which I feel is worthy. Otherwise I'll end up going back on a weekday. --Gmaxwell 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, at least until someone comes up with a better version. I like moondigger's edit, but we're starting to lose a lot of the pedestal. --jjron 10:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  We're not voting to delete the image.. :) That no replacement has been posted is orthogonal to defeaturing this image... the replacement won't be automatically featured in any case. I have alternatives which I've not yet posted, hopefully I'll get them up tonight. In the meantime you can look at the South wall. --Gmaxwell 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. Personally, until I see something better I don't think the image is that bad that it needs to be delisted, if others think otherwise, fine. But if we go through putting up every image that may or may not make it through under current standards we could be very busy. I'm not convinced this wouldn't make it through now, although admittedly it probably wouldn't. --jjron 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell's contrasty Lincoln. View detail.

Gmaxwell's accurate and informative Lincoln. View detail.

I don't really understand your position. My view is that it is just a snapshot. It is not a bad snapshot, but it's not especially informative, nor detailed, it's not especially stunning, and doesn't exemplify especially good technique. And really, I don't see why you think it would have the slightest chance of being featured today.

I don't claim to have a 'feature worthy' alternative, and I think that the Lincoln statue in the memorial is a challenging subject to create an image of which would be truly deserving featured status... That said: Almost anyone, myself included, could produce images which are of similar or better quality day in and out. To the right I've included two images, variations on the same capture. I have a half dozen other similar pictures from different perspectives which I could put up, but I don't think they are especially good... and it probably won't be until the winter when the tourism drops off and I've had time to have a meeting of minds with the parks service and their over reactive anti-terrorism security folks that I'm able to get a capture of Lincoln that I'm actually proud of (see the south wall image I linked above, I actually am proud of that)...--Gmaxwell 06:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the last GMaxwell one has what I assume are dead apple blossoms all over him. -Ravedave 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He just needs a bath, he also has cobwebs. I assume they hose down the memorial from time to time... I'm not exactly allowed to go and clean him off. :) Cloning them all out would be a pain and would be make the image further from reality. :) The prior image was somewhat dirty too, but some of the dirt was cloned out. --Gmaxwell 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• delist There must be a gazillion photographs of this Lincoln monument. This one has not got the extras to make it featured. Janderk 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• delist not a good pic--Childzy _talk ^contribs 13:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Grecian Cat

Greece-Cat.jpg

Too small, non-notable, bad JPEG compression artifacts. Does not represent Wikipedia's best work.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - never liked this photo. Renata 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nom. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. -- moondigger 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. -- Glaurung 05:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Interesting to see the different reaction: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cat in greece --Fir0002 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, standards have risen a lot since then. Look at this - these were the days when the first photograph and the only picture of Frederic Chopin were being nominated, and where if an image was listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination, and the general consensus is in its favor, it could be promoted to FP status! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keepsomewhat aesthetic--Vircabutar 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)--
• Delist like the cat but the feature definitely isn't FPC material. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Daĉjo^почта 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I remember when this previously went up for delisting and I was puzzled that people supported it. :) --Gmaxwell 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Aesthetics easily trump its (minor IMHO) technical flaws. --Bagginz 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold Coast

Gold Coast (from The Spit).jpg

Too small, slight quality problem. Also has no {{FPC}} tag.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Added FPC tag. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. -- moondigger 20:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. " " . AJ24 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Abbey of Senanque

Abbey-of-senanque-provence-gordes.jpg

Too small, bad quality.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nom. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Badly oversharpened, grainy, low res. -- moondigger 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Extremely grainy, especially around roof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ24 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 July 2006
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Very Large Array

USA.NM.VeryLargeArray.02.jpg

Too small, blown highlights.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nom. It would be nice to have a similer, but better image. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, per above. -- moondigger 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist but we should list it on a page of previously featured images that need replacement... This is a subject that should be fairly easy to take truly fantastic pictures of... --Gmaxwell 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

National Gallery, London

Nat-gall-lond-tr-sq2.jpg

Too small, artifacting, a lot of people.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, per nom. -- moondigger 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent scene. "A lot of people"?? Would you oppose a photograph of Time Square because it has people in it? That's a ridiculous argument. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:11

Size is more of a problem here. I'm am leaving a note on the uploader's talk page to see if he can provide a higher resolution version. Glaurung 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Daĉjo^почта 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. An infinitely better image could easily be re-taken, minus the blue light of course, but that is hardly relevent to the National Gallery as it was for a PEPSI commercial. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sainte Jeanne d'Arc Church

Too small, bad JPEG compression artifacts.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nom. Also bad composition. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, per nom. -- moondigger 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. ----Markmorker 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User's only contribution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fennec

File:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpg

FennecFox.jpg

This image of a fennec, while it may be cute, is too small, grainy, and has a licence that makes it undesirable on FP - the deprecated {{PD}} tag.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Fenecs are so cute. If only there was a better image available. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. -- moondigger 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist grainy and small --Glaurung 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per Nom. -- AJ24 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

PearlHarbor Sm.jpg

Too small, some pixelation and artifaction.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. -- moondigger 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Neutrality^talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PetronasTowers

The Petronas Towers

Extreme image cut-off. Not the Best Wikipedia has to offer. Is the image computer-animated? If so, it should be replaced with an image of the completed project and completely portraying both towers (image appears fake). Also, image blurred surrounding the Towers' connecting bridge.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't appear fake to me, and I feel that the cutting off doesn't detract from it's appeal. PPGMD 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom--Vircabutar 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I agree that the image looks fake -- and that's because it shares some of the same faults as the Pangong Lake image. The unnatural blue color in the sky is very much like that in the Pangong Lake image. It also exhibits vignetting, oversaturation and excessive contrast. At 100% it's obviously a soft image that's been oversharpened to compensate. -- moondigger 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a gorgeous photo of the towers -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per moondigger --Glaurung 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Its a spectacular view but not a spectacular image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent angle and lighting. I don't understand why you are criticizing all of these images when viewed at their maximum resolution. The important thing is that they look right at the resolution used in their respective articles. This isn't Commons FPC, after all. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:23
  • Because the featured picture criteria say images should be "high quality," not to mention "Wikipedia's best work." This image violates both criteria. If the "important thing" is that they look alright at the resolution used in their articles, then why bother with minimum resolution requirements at all? A 240x320 image is more than big enough for the vast majority of articles. Why bother keeping the yellow mite image nearly 4000 pixels tall? Why keep the Grauman's Theatre image at more than 4000 pixels and 5.8 MB? These are all rhetorical questions, of course. The reason why we judge featured picture candidates at their full resolutions is obvious -- because they don't deserve to be featured if they only look acceptable in thumbnails. Besides which, this image doesn't even look good in the thumbnail, IMO. It looks fake, as if somebody used the paint bucket tool in Photoshop to fill in the sky with the most unnatural, garish shade of blue they could find, then purposefully darkened the corners a bit to simulate vignetting.-- moondigger 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Note. Compare the sky in this image with the sky in the Grecian Cat image immediately below -- despite its faults, the cat image contains a realistic blue sky. -- moondigger 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well the image was obviously taken at twilight, when such a sky is perfectly expected. See Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg --Fir0002 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It doesn't look like it was taken at twilight to me, and the metadata seems to indicate it was taken well before twilight, if it can be trusted. Even if it was taken at twilight, the contrast and saturation have been pumped up beyond reasonable limits; see the STS-98 image you worked on for a more realistic depiction of a twilight sky. Besides, you certainly can't claim the Pangong Lake image was taken at twilight, and it shares the same fake-looking blue color that the sky in this one has. (BTW, I think the saturation on the Melbourne twilight image is a bit much too... though certainly nowhere near as pumped as Pangong Lake or this image.) -- moondigger 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Look I'm not talking about Pagong Lake, and it has no relevance to this image. They are unique and distinct. Independent if you see what I mean. And of course it's taken at twlight, as otherwise the lights wouldn't be on! --Fir0002 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • The relevence to this image is the sky. You're suggesting that the sky is the color it is because the image was taken at twilight. Yet it shares the same color as the Pangong lake image, which was clearly not taken at twilight. Fine, then... forget about the Pangong Lake image here. This particular color does not resemble any sky I've ever seen in person, twilight or otherwise. It's a result of pumping contrast and saturation up beyond reasonable limits, IMO. It's one of the reasons I oppose it. -- moondigger 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • The mistake you seem to be making is that you're assuming your eyes see colour and light the same way a camera does. I've taken many many photos that have a very similar sky to this, both during the day and at night. Any clear blue sky has the potential to look like that if you expose it that way (eg underexpose), but it is particularly easy to do at twilight simply because that is the luminosity of the sky that typically corresponds with the correct exposure for the nightscape - give or take a stop or two, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Diliff, I've been shooting landscapes for 20 years. I know how film and digital sensors react to light and color, and how that differs from the way eyes react to light and color. I've taken over 15,000 exposures on digital alone, probably triple that on film. The closest I've ever gotten to this color is with Fuji Velvia slide film, a film commonly referred to as "DisneyChrome" and well-known to be oversaturated and super-high contrast. Even on Velvia, no matter what the exposure or time of day, I've never gotten something quite as garish as the Pangong Lake sky. See this image: [22] for an example of what a properly-exposed twilight sky looks like on Velvia. Only when I've underexposed Velvia at twilight have I gotten a few exposures somewhat similar to the Petronas Towers sky. But even then, I would have to pump up the saturation even more post-scan to match it.

On digital, I've never gotten anything anywhere close to this in an out-of-camera exposure, even if I underexposed. It would be easy to make one look like this, though... just move the saturation slider a couple dozen points to the right, and boost the contrast too. My complaint is that when people pump up the contrast and saturation post-exposure, they should take care to insure they're not pushing too far beyond what's natural. That's clearly what happened in both the Pangong Lake image and this one.

I never said it was impossible to have skies look like this; I said that when they do it's due to overzealous post-processing. Of course there are photographers who prefer oversaturated, high-contrast images, no matter how fake they look. I'm not one of them... and furthermore, even if such images are marginally acceptable in a travel brochure, they're entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia, which I believe should aim for accurate representations. -- moondigger 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what I'm saying, and what I assume Diliff is saying, is that skies like that are not always the result of overzealous post-processing. Here's another example, I took this for my brother when he made that site. That's straight out of my Kodak. I'm not knocking your experience, but personally in the short time I've been taking photos, I've often come across twilight skies which look like that in reality. Another possiblity, although it doesn't look that way, is that it was an exposure bracket and the sky was part of the under-exposed frame. Maybe it's just Australian/Asian skies :-) --Fir0002 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and another twilight shot by Diliff: Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg --Fir0002 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fir, neither of the images you linked as examples have skies that look anything like the Petronas Towers sky to me. They look good; they resemble skies I have seen in real life and have photographed myself. As I said previously, the Petronas sky looks like somebody picked a garish blue shade and filled in the sky with the paint bucket tool in Photoshop. Do you really not see the difference between this one (garish, fake-looking) and those you linked to (pleasing, natural, realistic)? -- Moondigger 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do see a slight difference, but not a lot to go on to say it's "fake". If you look in my image, it shows a nice gradient. Due to the size of the towers (and therefore the trajectory of the camera), the towers would be depicted on the part of the gradient where the colors look like that. I don't see it was being too unrealistic personally. --Fir0002 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've recieved confirmation from the photographer. The image was taken "7 or 8 o'clock in the evening". See my talk page on the commons for his complete response. --Fir0002 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it still looks overprocessed to me, making the sky look unrealistic (despite being taken late in the day) and has other problems (previously listed). All of the other twilight sky examples you or I have posted look much more realistic to me. -- Moondigger 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • What you're not realizing is that there is more to "quality" than resolution and sharpness. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 05:35
      • If all I was concerned about was resolution and sharpness, I would never criticize composition, lighting, color, contrast, saturation, etc. In fact, I tend to put more stock in those aspects than resolution... but I was told when I started participating here that resolution was important, that even images that met the requirement might be rejected unless they exceeded the stated requirements. So I consider resolution when I analyze images, even though I might not have given it as much weight under other circumstances. -- moondigger 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Various things are important. But none is be-all end-all, as you seem to suggest. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:44

• Delist per others. Really looks bad enlarged. gren グレン 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Fantastic image with unfortunate compression artefacts. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. We have to be able to do better than this. It's not as if it's "hard" to get a shot of the towers at night. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Samsara. Jono (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• delist. While it is a beuatiful image to look at, I think it is too cut-off and lacks enough encyclopaedic value to be featured. say1988 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. washed out and blurry at full res. --Dschwen 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Image is Copyrighted. -- AJ24 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted 11 Delist, 5 Keep Fir0002 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment from the photographer

A few days ago I found out that this photograph I took in Kuala Lumpur more than three years ago was no longer a featured picture on English Wikipedia. At the time when it was featured, I felt really happy about it, so finding out that this is no longer the case has been a bit of a disappointment. Of course, I can perfectly understand that not everyone would like the picture, but what I have found really distressing is the fact that people are suggesting that the picture has been heavily postprocessed, even using the word "fake" to describe it. On the contrary, I can assure that this is not the case at all. In fact, the picture is not even cropped and the only processing it has received was the digital copy from the film which was done at the Tesco store in England where I had several rolls of film developed. This is an important fact that many Wikipedia users seem to have overlooked: the original picture is film, not digital, which explains why the quality of the image in terms of lighting is much superior to what you would expect from an originally digital image. The metadata do not come from the moment the picture was taken, but rather from the equipment used by Tesco to create a CD of pictures from developed film. I have to say that the developed picture looks even more impressive, sharper and less blurry, than the digital copy. I don't really know how I managed to take such beautiful pictures (I have another similar one); I am not a professional photographer and I didn't even use a tripod; I was just holding my camera in front of the towers. I think I was lucky to take the picture at a moment of the day (evening of Thursday, 13 May 2004) when the lighting conditions were particularly good and, besides, I was using a very good camera, my dear old Nikon FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm 1/1.8 lens. The 50 mm lens made it difficult for me to get as much of the towers as I wanted in the picture. The angle is actually the effect of me trying to make them fit within the picture while I was standing in front of the towers. At the end of my Asian trip, in July 2004, I took my rolls of film to the Tesco store on Newmarket Road in Cambridge, England, where I had them developed. They gave me a CD with the digital copies of the pictures for each roll. That's where the image I uploaded comes from. Later, a Commons user edited the picture with some sort of blur effect to make it look less grainy. This is the story of this picture, plain old-fashioned photography with a no-frills Nikon FM2 camera. --Gelo 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian_bull

Indonesian Bull

Not only is the image of a very poor level of photography, the subject is undecided. The photo could be about anything: hurricane destruction, farming, et al. I believe the original subject was the hut. Again, very poor quality.

• Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I agree with AJ24's criticism's above. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Vircabutar 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• And why is this an image worthy of FP status? -- AJ24 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Besides the problems already mentioned, the sky is blown out and it doesn't meet resolution requirements. -- moondigger 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Neutrality^talk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, I like the picture... but it's not a good representation of the animal nor does it explain what the whole scene is. gren グレン 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, it's still an awesome composition. However, I will vote delist on the basis of small size. Original nom was Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/April-2004#Indonesia_Bull. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Per above. Viva La Vie Boheme 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User has 8 edits outside user page. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:58
• Delist. Too small... nice image though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, reluctantly - excellent composition, but FPs have to be higher resolution than 640x480, IMO; this doesn't even get close. I hope the contributor has a higher-resolution version. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, small res, vauge subject. HighInBC 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Really not among WPs best. Blown out sky, exteremely low res and arbirtary subject matter. I couldn't tell if the hut is just old and roitten or if it was a hurricane that did this. --Dschwen 18:26, 24 July 2006 totally (UTC)

Delisted 11 Delist. 1 Keep --Fir0002 10:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tawaret

Image size too small; there is nothing special about it; not a FP quality and doesn't have a "wow" factor

• Nominate and Delist. - Vircabutar 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. per nom. -- AJ24 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting picture, good quality, serves well to illustrate two distinct articles. Nominator should inform uploader (per instructions), and can request higher resolution copy from him. --Davepape 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Vircabutar. -- Moondigger 14:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small, uncomfortably close cropping, too bright background.--ragesoss 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Far too small. --liquidGhoul 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yamdok Yumtso

File:Milopengtibet2.jpg

Not sure how anybody failed to notice this before, but this image has no source. It was tagged for having no source on August 14 and is scheduled to be deleted on August 21, so this is kind of an emergency delisting request. Additionally, the uploader's talk page is full of no source warnings.

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment--If it's going to be deleted, why does it need to be delisted? If it's deleted, wouldn't it be delisted by default? Also, the delisting won't go into effect until after the deletion. Too bad there's no source--it's actually a pretty nice picture. Joniscool98 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Because all references to it being a FP have to be removed too. I'm not counting on the deleting admin to recognize what all of those are, but those who close the delist noms know the procedure a lot better. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah all right...in that case, Delist...I agree (unless the source info can be found).Joniscool98 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. No license no FP, it's that simple. And the user apparently completely ignores the talkpage messages although is is currently active in WP. --Dschwen 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist if no better source info can be found. The alleged photographer, "Milo Peng", appears to actually be the name of an iced drink (see Nestlé Milo). --Davepape 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist. With no appropriate license, the image is inelligible for featured status, regardless of any previous votes on the matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I opposed the promotion of this one originally for other reasons. I don't know how we missed the license problems then. -- Moondigger 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist: Thanks to the help of an anon, the image has now been sourced. However, the license at the source location is cc-by-nc-2.0, which is still inappropriate for Wikipedia. Once it is orphaned, it will need to be deleted. --Hetar 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted, so no point keeping it in the FP listing. Delisted. Raven4x4x 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Parliament

Too small and the whole sky is blown out.

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It would be easy to get a better photo of the parliment buildings (they're very photogenic). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist How did that even pass FP? Way to small and completly overblown sky. HighInBC 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The smaller version has been delisted in October 2004. I don't see when the larger version has been relisted... --Bernard 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that might explain it. I was going through all the old POTDs and found this one with no nomination for FP status or nomination for delisting either. This one is really just a larger version of a delisted FP after all, so this exercise is pretty much moot then. howcheng {chat} 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Agree with reasons above. Mikeo 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. -- Moondigger 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously delisted. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg

Way too many JPEG compression artifacts.

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Holy jpeg artifacts batman! HighInBC 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Could almost be a nice illustration for the Compression artifact article. Nice subject, though. Mikeo 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I think a lot of it is due to a poor scan and incorrect blackpoint, washing out the contrast. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. -- Moondigger 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider

Original discussion

Now that the copyright issue has been cleared up, let's start this delist nomination over and discuss the image itself instead. howcheng {chat} 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Too small, slight discolouration, non-remarkable.

• Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delist; there also appears to be some slight vignetting around the edges. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Excellent image of a winch launch. PPGMD 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not really convinced that it shows a winch launch very well. To me, a non-gliding person (although I did pilot a glider once in Hawaii), it just looks like a big cable attached to the glider. I think a good image of a winch launch would show the winch as well. howcheng {chat} 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The picture you are suggesting would be very boring, a winch launch is a very different type of launch, at times the glider is nearly vertical, it's quite a rush during your first launch, which this illustrates quite well. PPGMD 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • When I first saw this image, I didn't realise that the glider was vertical; I thought the photo was just slanted. A better image would show the horizon to get a proper idea of the angle of the craft. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Keep The glider isn't vertical and shouldn't appear as such. Using winch launch, the angle should be 40-50° and never over 70°. I vote keep the image, the photo can be assumed to be horizontal and the glider is near the optimum angle. hrf 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist. Per Nom. -- AJ24 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Doesn't meet minimum size requirements. Mikeo 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per nom. Duran 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Doesn't meet minimum size requirements, cropped too tightly. Also I disagree that it's a particularly good depiction of a winch launch. Per Howcheng, that cable hanging down out of the frame doesn't tell us much. Just doesn't seem like FP material. -- Moondigger 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Too small, and unless it was explained to me it looks more like a kite than a winch launch. A FP should make it's subject clear and not lead to confusion. HighInBC 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too tight a crop, and ack Howcheng. Strongly disagree with PPGMD, I can only speculate what Howcheng has in mind but I'd suggest an extreme zoom lens shot from a plane above and behind the glider looking along the cable, maybe showing a bit of the horizon. It'll be difficult but way more instructive and spectacular. --Dschwen 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist does not represent the finest of wikipedia Michaeln36 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The winch is approximately 1 kilometre away from the glider so getting that in shot is tricky. Do pictures have to be self-explanatory? It was Picture of the Day last year so someone else liked it. JMcC 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sure it's not up to current dimension standards, but it's not too far off. Sharp, well composed image with nothing major to warrant delisting. --Fir0002 11:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. I saw worst images in FP page and this is just much better. Only the size is a problem. Arad 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station

Barely meets size requirements (1000x667 px), blown-out highlights, and an overall green color cast (probably as a result of fluorescent lighting).

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per overblown ceiling, small size, greenish tint, and the motion blur detracts from the picture in my opinion. HighInBC 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Interesting composition and motion blur, but not terribly encyclopedic, IMO. Blown highlights and green color cast don't help either. -- Moondigger 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As someone who has provided dozens of Moscow subway pictures (none FP material), I was alway surprised that this one was a featured picture. InvictaHOG 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Retain This is an atmospheric image, it's technical failings only add to the atmoshpere. Here's the original discussion Kievskaya Metro Station--Mcginnly | Natter 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the motion blur and how that one woman is just standing there, but this could have been done better with a small aperture that would have gotten the same effect without the blown highlights. And the green cast doesn't help at all IMHO. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Very flawed from the technical perspective. Much better pictures can convey an appropriate atmosphere. --Lmsilva 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist has some qualities as a arty piece, but not very encyclopaedic Michaeln36 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Basilica of Mary Magdalene

This image is obviously not up to standards; it's extremely grainy and out-of-focus (not to mention the tiny size of 115KB). Sorry, but it needs to be delisted at once.

• Delist. -GarrettRock 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist --Vircabutar 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Does not resemble the best in Wikipedia anymore. Mikeo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Standards have changed, this one is way to small, and grainy even then. HighInBC 15:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, all has been said. --Dschwen 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per Mikeo -- Michaeln36 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Zermatt and Matterhorn

This is a good and encyclopaedic photo, but with a resolution of 600x604 px it is much too small for a featured picture. It is also somewhat blurry.

• Delist. --KFP 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist too small, there must be tons of better pics of that subject. --Dschwen 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Tiny, over and under exposed. HighInBC 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist as per HighInBC. Michaeln36 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delisted, --KFP 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

London Eye panorama

Reflections visible, really poor stitching.

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm surprised people don't fall out of the half-cars more often. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Pretty bad stiching, blown out area, and low quality -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom, also tilted and blurry with blown-out sky. --KFP 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - This is a horrible London panorama. The sky is overexposed, it was taken out of a glossy window, and there are numerous stitching mistakes. The panorama isn't even widely used on notable Wikipedia pages. --Ineffable3000 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist How come this ever became featured? I saw no voting page among the links. --Janke | Talk 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This was promoted long long ago, before the advent of voting (I don't know exactly what happened back then, maybe it was just one user's opinion). There was a delist nomination in July 2004 which garnered no comments, so I guess it never got delisted. Considering it's missing from WP:FP and WP:FPV it might actually have been delisted, but there's no record either way. I didn't notice how bad it was until I was adding {{picture of the day}} to the old POTDs (this one was back in June 2004). howcheng {chat} 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Dreadful quality (image and stitching). Nauticashades 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Just not pretty. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I did not even know it was featured. At the time I uploaded it there was not much London-Fotos in Wikipedia, so I just thought it would be nice for people to see how it looks like from above. But it was just a snapshot ;-) Fantasy 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - I think the reasoning goes unsaid here. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per all -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 06:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- One reason (among others) why this panorama contains stitching errors is because the viewpoint is not stationary, and cannot be. The passenger capsules on the London Eye are in constant motion, albeit at a slow rate. Thus any panorama made from separately captured images will necessarily have regions of discontinuity, because the camera's nodal point isn't fixed across the component images. Specialized equipment should be used to take a single-shot panorama of this angle. --Wickerprints 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Water colored by iron

Not only is this picture to small, but it is also too blurry. If you look at the back row of trees, a large amount of JPEG artifacts can also be seen. No real detail can me made out, due to shallow depth-of-field (I assume - it could just be bad quality). Standards have changed since it was promoted.

• Strong Delist. - Nauticashades 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nominator. --KFP 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a NASA image, you can often find a bigger version, as far as being blurry, thats sort of the point when you shoot waterfall images, most photographers slow the shutter speed down to blur the water to give it a pleasing effect. PPGMD 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but just look at the trees behind it: the quality is horrible. If someone can find a bigger version, please upload it. Nauticashades 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Doesn't meet resolution requirements, technical problems. -- Moondigger 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Too small, nice picture though, HighInBC 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Too small, bad quality - I can easily see the lossy compression --WikiSlasher 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is one of my favorite pictures, I think it has good color, and cannot see any "blurs". AndonicO 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The color may be great, but the quality is more important. Aside from being very small, this picture's quality is horrible. Look at the back row of trees: barely nothing is discernable. It's just a blur of colors, not to mention the artifacts. Nauticashades 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Great shot, poor size and quality. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Cool image, not a feature-quality image. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Sadly i have to say delist it. Too small for FP requirements. Nice image though. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind stating why? NauticaShades^(talk) 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The picture meets my standards for a FP, sizewise it is big enough to illustrate an article (which is what we do here after all), and the minor fuzzyness in the trees in the back is fine by me, as the waterfall itself is displayed well. On a side note, I also feel that the FP standards by many editors are too high. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Lets look at the critera:
        • Be of high quality: Failed. The quality is awful.
        • Be of a high resolution: Failed. 607 x 537 is nowhere near 1000 px.
        • Be Wikipedia's best work: Failed. Even non-featured images are better quality.

NauticaShades^(talk) 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lake Fryxell

Replacement Candidate.

This isn't exaclty a delisting. I am trying to get the current Featured Picture replaced by the better Commons Featured Picture version of it. The Wikipedia version has already been tagged as superseded and most instances of the image have been moved to the other version, except Lake Fryxell. This is a vote whether to delist the current one and replace it withe the better (in my opinion) one. Okay, I'm now trying to get the Wikipeida replaced with the original un-retouched version. If the vote doesn't pass, I'll replace all Commons instances of the picture (in articles) with the Wikipedia one.

• Replace. - NauticaShades^(talk) 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement of an image with an inferior version. The current featured image is higher resolution and has a more natural color balance. The commons version has an unnatural color balance that shows as a purple tint in the shadows of the mountain. Contrast and sharpness of the original could be adjusted without resorting to the overprocessed version nominated here. -- Moondigger 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delist original and oppose promotion of alternate version. After reading the image page I'm now opposed to all versions of this image for featured status. The author explicitly states that the entire sky is artificial, created with the color gradient tool in photoshop. That doesn't represent reality, and shouldn't be featured at all. -- Moondigger 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe that other retouched pictures are Featured Pictures, though. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats possibly true, but there is a significant portion voters here who would and do oppose images that have been retouched in that way. Just because images have been promoted in the past, doesn't make the voting against a re-touched image invalid now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a difference between touching up the brightness or removing noise, both of which are acceptable, and digitally replacing the entire sky. Adding or removing elements in this way has always been frowned upon. Raven4x4x 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist both. As per moondigger's comments, it has been significantly re-touched. The original image was overly cropped at the horizon and an editor has artificially placed a gradient sky above the edge of the frame to improve the composition. (which it has, but it is no longer reliably encylopaedic and I don't think we should be setting that sort of precedent (if it is not already too late!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We aren't really responsible for delisting the Commons Picture, however. NauticaShades^(talk) 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was lost in my own megalomania for a while there. ;) I'll settle for delisting the original then. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• How about replacing it with this? Note: I've now uploaded and added it. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist and oppose replacement. NauticaShades' version replacement candidate is too tightly cropped. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not "my version", it's the original. The others aren't actually less cropped, someone just added an artifical gradient. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist and oppose replacement. Wholeheartedly agree with Diliff (except the megalomania part ;-) ). --Dschwen 11:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the original? NauticaShades^(talk) 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, it is an interesting place, but the icesheet lacks scale and the hills are shadowy. I guess I'd weak support it. --Dschwen 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiritimati

This is not an exceptionally sharp or detailed satellite photograph. Compression artifacts and poor stitching are visible over the ocean. Additionally, a considerable portion of the island is obscured by clouds.

• Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The nomination said it all. NauticaShades^(talk) 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Never did like that one, not impressive. | AndonicO 10:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. It's pretty much the same as a number of astronaut photos. howcheng {chat} 03:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Fly Eye Delist

Not only is this image too small for today's standards, but it is not very good quality (DOF too shallow), and strangely cropped

• Delist. - NauticaShades 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Steven 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Duran 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Not to mention the glare spot.--HereToHelp 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamar and Brunel Bridges

Too distorted, blown highlights.

• Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --Steven 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A pity to delist this picture inspite of blown highlights. I don't think distortion is a problem, it reminds me of a M. C. Escher painting! -- Alvesgaspar 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I always wondered how that got to be a featured picture in the first place. | AndonicO Talk 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - how did this get through the first time? Yeuch. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Earth revolves around a sun. Deal with it. drumguy8800 C T 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• What does the earth revolving around the sun have to do with it? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delist Per blown highlights and distortion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)`
• Delist per nominator. -- Moondigger 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question Are the bridges actually curved like this in reality? -Arad 22:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not nearly to this extreme, although the approach to the Brunnel bridge is quite curved.Laïka 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delist; confusing. Laïka 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Yuck. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question wheres the original nom? -- Coasttocoast 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, lol it seems that every picture there has been delisted :D -- Coasttocoast 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wakizashi

Unsharp picture of a wakizashi

I do not know when (and why!) this was featured, but it probably wouldn't even get one single supporting vote today. I like the composition and subject. Its technical quality, however, is a different matter:

• extremely unsharp
• very noisy
• a slight tilt
• artifacts
• very badly edited (Gaussian blur seems to have been used to get rid of some of the noise, however that wasn't done uniformly.)
• blown-out highlights

That this is on the front page today is somewhat embarrassing.

NOTE: original nomination.

• Delist. - mstroeck 11:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Noisy background and parts of the sword seem oversharpened. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delist - when I saw it on the front page I came here to see if anyone had set it up for delisting; if they hadn't, I'd have done it myself. A good subject but an awful photo, embarrassing to the Wiki. Maybe in future a person/team should check the upcoming front page pics and check any which may not be up to par? -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't usually check the rerun images when I schedule the PsOTD, but I can probably start doing that. They are scheduled one month in advance, so anyone who wants to can check through November 2006. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just had a browse through and they invariably look superb; the only one that could be considered close to contentious is due to its relatively small size. However, given that a) this was acknowledged at the time of nomination, b) the picture is from the 1800s and c) it's unbelievably striking I don't see a problem. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • As a side note, the reruns are currently being pulled from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 02. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • A lot of those don't meet modern standards - is there some way of having a mass review of them? -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Besides the current process of nominating them individually, no. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - I thought the same thing when I saw this on the front page. The white cloth looks horribly -- Coasttocoast 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I am the author of the image, and I also agree that it is not up to current standards. (Was a very dark environment). I completely forgot that it was a featured image -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per author, edges are too dark to see the shape. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Horrible quality. On a side style note, please refrain form writing bias captions. NauticaShades 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point

No longer in any article (replaced in Zabriskie Point by a panoramic image taken by the same author) and it's a little small anyway (800x600).

• Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - superseded. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Not in article, not FP. Also it is 68k and low res. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per above. NauticaShades 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New Scotland Yard

New Scotland Yard

I doubt this picture would pass today, as it's little more than a picture of a sign. Doesn't seem striking or informative. - Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Completely agree - it doesn't add much to any article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Too small, depicts subject poorly, sign blocks building. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above - this could be a sign for anything. tiZom_(2¢) 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Too small, and also doesn't meet the new criterion 5 (finally put to use!). NauticaShades 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist bad on windows. gren グレン`

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This delisting is an interesting example of decisions being made by members who appear not to be familiar with the subject of the photograph. "Sign blocks building" is a most extraordinary comment. As the opening paragraph of the article on Scotland Yard points out, the sign is a famous London icon. Every UK news broadcast about Scotland Yard features almost exactly the shot depicted here, largely because the building itself is very dull, and the sign outside it is its most distinctive feature. The photograph may not be large enough and may have other technical inadequacies but it nevertheless constitutes the definitive image, not just of Scotland Yard, but of the Metropolitan Police as an institution. Russ London 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

American White Ibises

This one is too small and too artifacted by modern FP standards.

• Nominate and Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delist too small, too many jpeg artifacts. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per HighInBC. NauticaShades 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per HighInBC. Duran 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. i like this picture, i dont think the artifacts or the size take away from it significently.Pigottsm 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. NauticaShades 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Radcliffe Camera (March 2003)

This FP has recently been superseded by Diliff's Image:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg.

• Nominate and delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 12:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. This one is way below res standards and the new FP is very similar but with much higher quality. --Dschwen 13:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - Alvesgaspar 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Was going to get around to nominating this one eventually. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Superseded. NauticaShades 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Superseded. JanSuchy 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Well, sooner or later, all FPs are going to be replaced by ones made by Diliff. --Arad 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Superseded, and too small anyways. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

American Burying Beetle

This picture is not only too small by today's standards, but the quality is horrible. It has blown highlights, it is unsharp, and it is very grainy, not to mention those borders.

• Delist. - NauticaShades 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom gren グレン 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Nauticashades that the quality is bad by today standards. But delisting the picture is like "revising the past" (it immediately comes to my mind George Orwell's 1984), and I believe we shouldn't do that. On the contrary, by delisting a recent picture we are just correcting an error of judgement. - Alvesgaspar 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the entire point of delisting: too clean out old Featured Pictures that don't meet standards anymore. As Wikipedia's pictures' quality improve, so must its Featured Pictures. Arguements on whether old FPs should be delisted or not should be done at the talk page or at the Village Pump, not here, which is bordering on WP:POINT, in my opinion. NauticaShades 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change, and what is considered a featured picture is not set in stone. We can always leave a note that images used to be featured; we're not deleting any sign that it ever was and throwing it down the memory hole. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Fir0002 22:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delist - I can't believe the level of support for this picture which, by today's standards, is woeful. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. The FP list is fluid. There is no reason in keeping poor quality FPs for the sake of preserving history. Change is inevitable and necessary. It keeps standards high and wikipedia benefits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Alvesgaspar's comments --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe the support for this image - if it was merely too small by modern standards then yes, it could probably stand. However, this is a horrific photograph with numerous flaws and an atrocity of a border - having this as 'featured' is an embarrassment for Wikipedia if you ask me, and, as has been said before, damaging the way that the delisting process works just to prove a point is not something which Wikipedia supports. This is just silly. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Neutrality^talk 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. History can be preserved using {{FormerFeaturedPicture}}. --Dschwen 14:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice at Night

The "Quai des États-Unis" in Nice, France.

I'm glad to be nominating a picture that does meet the size requirements, but simply does not meet the other criteria. This image does not only have glaringly obvious (not to mention distracting) blown highlights, but there are jpeg artifacts very visible in the bottom right in the trees and the distant hills, as well as the background being very unsharp. The motion blur of the cars is also distracting and is not being used to illustrate anything. The compistion is also just too busy.

• Delist. - NauticaShades 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• delist, just blurry all around Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist JanSuchy 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Nice pun on "glaringly" obvious blown highlights :-P • Leon 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Terrible picture. The blown highlights are very distracting here. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Blown hightlights. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted per unanimous consensus after 8 days --NMChico24 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Habanero

A habanero

This picture no longer meets the criteria for WP:FPC and should be delisted. I saw it as picture-of-the-day.. aiiesh. Blown highlights, (sort of) low resolution, blur, noise.

• Delist drumguy8800 C T 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Deslist blown highlights, hotspots, replacable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, all sorts of issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above.--Bridgecross 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - I saw it on the homepage and came straight here. Something really needs to be done about the whole "we should keep older FPs even though they're crud" debate, since IMHO it contributes heavily to these bad pictures slipping through the net and onto the main page. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Per above. NauticaShades 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per above. We already have a better version Alvesgaspar 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per above. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per other contributors. mstroeck 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Red fox with prey

This image is quite dreadfully oversharpened.

• Nominate and delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it seems that a wrong version of the image was listed as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak delist. The image quality is still not very good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist at 100%, it looks really weird. Noisy, oversharpened, jpg artifacts, etc. --Andrew c 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist agree that at 100% it's quite noisy and littered with artifacts. --NMChico24 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Something is not right here. It was not like this prior to it getting uploaded to the commons. the quality has since changed. take a look at the original version that i had uploaded, Image:Red fox with prey.JPG. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, the original is still in the file upload history. The Commons page says that the "new" version was edited by Fir0002. Keep. I've reverted to the older version and besides, according to the original discussion, the sharpened version was not promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - that looks more like the version that was promoted. I say keep it as featured. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry there's still some weird line ejecting up from the fox's neck. It's a good picture (certainly as good as any I'm capable of taking), but it's not the best Wikipedia has to offer, which IMHO is what a featured picture should be. --NMChico24 04:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The line on the neck is just a blade of grass -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist artifacts noise and blur. I've seen both edits, they both exhibit it. drumguy8800 C T 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I looks like it was taken out of focus and artificially sharpened. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. As with a lot of these, good for the article, not good for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Terrible quality, definitely not an FP if judged by today's standards. mstroeck 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I fail to see the lack of quality your refering too. if this picture was not any good to begin with, then it wouldn't have made Feature status. -Puma5d04 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It was promoted last August, and judging by other pictures promoted around the same time, standards were somewhat lower. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Very blurry at full res. The colours look oddly warm, perhaps because it was taken at sunset/sunrise, but the lighting looks rather diffused. Also, anoying purple dot above the fox's back, and the cropping is too tight on the tail. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the purple dot is a out of focus flower which shouldn't be taken into consideration because the image is focused on the fox. --68.83.180.195 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per all above; odd colors and tail off edge of screen. --Bridgecross 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. --Yarnalgo 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. (8 delist votes that apply for the non-oversharpened version / 4 keep votes) --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh

Edit A for replacement

The colours look very fake, it was probably processed a lot on photoshop to reach this state. It fails the "Featured picture criteria 5": Be accurate. bogdan 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominate and delist. bogdan 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is extensive content pertinent to this discussion in this images FPC nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills of Kurdistan Province HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist elephants weep. This has had more photoshopping than ... well I don't know. Just look at it. The clouds man, the clouds! In the sky! o______O - Francis Tyers · 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is also some discussion at its talk page bogdan 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist While some playing with color levels etc is obviously OK, this crosses the line into "photoillustration". This clearly fails Featured picture criteria 5: "Be accurate". --Dgies 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment While some saturation modification is evident I have seen scenes with my own eyes that seem saturated beyond realism. Could the original author be contacted to clarify what modifications have been made? The sharp edges on the cloud do indicate some sort of significant modification. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Go here to get in touch with the photographer and see some other examples of photoshopping. He has some other pictures that might be "good" if not "featured" status, but this one has no business appearing on the WP front page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Looks like photoshopping to me. I say delist straight away, if it turns out to be real later on it can always have another shot on the front page. My guess though is that it will stay on for the duration of front page, which is a shame. Sad mouse 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Delist This isn't just a variation of saturation and color levels, this is a third rate masking job per my comments at the talk page. We're Wikipedia, not the Idiot's Guide to Photoshopping. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hard not to put any bias in this: Would you mind visiting this page a little more often to comment on the nominations? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't really have much reason to question the judgement of the editors so far, but I'll stick around. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom and others. 1ne 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Yep, it's the clouds; especially noticeable on the right. -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. This never should have been promoted in the first place. During the nomination period I recall mentioning which edit was reasonable in terms of saturation and post-processing, but IIRC the edits kept changing and I don't think the realistic one remained to be promoted at the end. -- Moondigger 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? does not say that image must be "natural". -- Petri Krohn 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you oppose delisitng to make it easier to read maybe putting Keep is better. --Arad 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I bet you opponents are all Linux users, and just do not like this "lame" wallpaper. -- Petri Krohn 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• What the hell? I don't use Linux... 1ne 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am making a far feteched guess that mabye you are refering to the windows cloud image? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Be natural" is not a criteria, but "Be accurate" IS, and hypersaturated colors, flat-colored sky, and sharp clouds do not accurately represent the subject. --Dgies 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to cite that (be accurate). 1ne 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment By looking at the photographer's Flikr site, it looks like the original was this: Image:IR.Kurdistan.jpg. It had oversaturated color and blown highlights in the clouds. The edited version which made FP tried to fix the blown highlights and introduce a faux-HDR. The result is messed up clouds, and still funny colors. --Dgies 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  That picture appears to be not only oversaturated, but also changed the hues with photoshop. (as can be seen with the violet sky) bogdan 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  Its a shame because I bet the original (as in before that guy photoshopped it) would be quite nice. - Francis Tyers · 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  The original already has the masked sky (see Image:Maskedsky.jpg). Oversaturation isn't as much of a problem, as it's somewhat reversible, but if you just paint over parts of the picture you can't fix the damage. ~ trialsanderrors 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist per not being accurate. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. How did that slip though? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Oversaturated colors, completely blown areas in clouds, grainy landscape. Dschwen is right, were we all on vacation when that went through? --Bridgecross 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Sky is photoshpped and just looks terible and fake. Ursper
• Delist per nom JanSuchy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. I don't know why I didn't vote on it when it was originally up, but when I was writing the POTD, I scrutinized the nomination to see if it had been promoted incorrectly. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delist - I don't know where you lot were when I seemed to be the only person opposing first time round! I agree it may once have been a good image (although I suspect it wasn't a perfect exposure even to begin with) but whatever the photographer did to it in post-processing has made it pretty horrible. I seem to remember that this image attracted a lot of support from people with an apparent Iranian connection who don't usually vote here (and didn't vote on other noms at the time), which made me think "vote stacking", but I couldn't find any direct evidence of this. If I'd realised how much support the delisting would get, I'd have put it up earlier - shame it had to make it onto the main page first. --YFB ¿ 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Actually you always oppose so, no wonder you were the only one. ;-) --Arad 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think your smiley makes that an appropriate comment. To say I always oppose is completely untrue, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (see, I even agree with you sometimes), 7, 8, 9, 10) - I think perhaps I just expect higher standards from FPs than you do? Anyway, I think the other votes here speak for themselves. --YFB ¿ 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not sure if this is edited a lot, the author is the only one who can clear that, but I still love the image. --Arad 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I uploaded a couple cropped versions (one for the FP, one for the edit) which look much better (IMHO), and are still large enough to be featured. They are Image:Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh cropped.jpg, and Image:Ir kurdistan edit-1 cropped.jpg | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The sky is still masked, as seen by the cloud behind the leftmost mountain, and from looking at the borwn field in the foreground I'm prtty sure the green grass is a mask too. ~ trialsanderrors 09:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The sky reminds me of computer animation. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reminds me of Teletubbie Land. Halsteadk 20:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• hahaha. It's not that bad!. --Arad 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. Very nifty look, I'd love to see a video game adopt that surreal color, but of course totally inappropriate for FP --froth^{T C} 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rogue River Oregon USA

Photoshopping example

Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg

PotD is usually a repository of great pictures, but this week has been a bit of a down week. Reading the nomination discussion, I have the feeling most editors did not actually look at the picture in full resolution. As someone just posted on the talk page, this picture suffers from massive Photoshopping and the resulting artifacts. Some details to look at:

1. The tree bark and railing on the upper right
2. The rockface above the graffiti on the middle right
3. Various occurences of sunlit vegetation
4. The water surface especially at the bottom

Since I can't modify this picture I used a simple one of my own to show what I think happened to this one: I used the original and sharpened the edges with a high sharpening radius, and increased both saturation and contrast. The result is an oversaturated image with lots of blown highlights, graininess and a lack of gradation in the details. I think the Rogue River image fails criterion #1 and should be delisted. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delist for all reasons above. This image just looks terrible at high resolution, look at the railing along the path to the right. The colors are completely unnatural. As one of the original opposers of this image, I could not believe the glowing comments of the supporters. --Bridgecross 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist for all the same reasons I opposed during the original nomination. Excessive color contrast and saturation have been substituted for luminance contrast (which can't be boosted without blowing out most of the highlights). Also, as Mikeo pointed out in the original nomination, heavy image deconvolution has been performed to reduce blurriness, which resulted in strange properties/artifacts plainly visible at full resolution. -- Moondigger 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The pic looks stunning and vivid as a thumbnail, but way way way over sharpened. JPEG artifacts, blown highlights, and host of other problems. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - This seriously isn't a sketch?  Jorcogα  04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - looks incredible at 800x552 but there's just not enough detail to fill the high resolution --froth^{T C} 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Agree with all above. --Janke | Talk 14:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, looks hideously oversharpened. I'm surprised it passed, with 7 supports (counting the nom) and 4 opposes, that's not usually enough for our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - Ouch. I thought it looked great, but in full resolution it looks hideous. It looks like one of my amateur photoshops. Hbdragon88 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I went ahead and added your sheep picture to Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? as one of the examples of what not to nominate. Redquark 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I cropped the kid out then. I don't think the sheep has privacy rights. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thurston lava tube

Heyy I think I see some graininess there.. no wait that's the cave

Edit 1 - Some of the grain removed, a very fast edit. Colors changed a bit.

Edit 2 - Most of the grain removed. Fast edit and i'm not sure if it helps.

One of our worst-quality featured photos. The thing is a gigantic compression artifact manifested in photo form! The original nomination is available here - I think what happened is that most of the Supports were for a previous lower-res verion.

• Nominate: Delist as per above --froth^{T C} 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Froth. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Ugh, grainyness. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, there are image quality problems. Not too severe for justifying the delisting of a picture made of something as hard to photograph as the inside of a lava tube. Show me a better quality picture of the same thing that could be made available here! If you can't, I guess there must be something special about this picture. Mikeo 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty of the shot is no excuse for abysmal image quality. However that graininess seems repairable enough, anyone want to try their hand at it? --froth^{T C} 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the opposite is applied regularly on FPC. If the subject is easy the pic must be perfect. --Dschwen 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. yep, it's too grainy. Witty lama 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Clean Although grainy, it can easily be cleaned up with somebody with the appropriate software. Sharkface217 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist OK, I'm looking at this in 33.3% in Photoshop and I can see the artifacts. Happy to reconsider if someone can clean this up, but this version has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | Unchanged. ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist I don't think any software can clean up the image when the detail is not there to begin with. And the difficulty of the shot does not outweigh the low quality. It doesn't seem that getting into this lava tube is so difficult anyway; it seems to be part of a guided tour with electric lights and a smooth path. --Bridgecross 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The noise could be cleaned up fairly easily, though striking a balance between noise cleanup and image detail might be tricky. I could give this a try later today. If anybody else has Noiseware Professional, I'd suggest starting with the "Weaker noise" preset and tweaking from there. -- Moondigger 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist It's not the graininess that made me say delist, but the sharpness. It looks like the camera had been moved during exposure.--antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Edits Ok, I'm made 2 edits very fast. I couldn't put much time. But here it is. Hope it helps. --Arad 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist still. Edit 2 did a good job of removing graininess but it's blurry now! --froth^{T C} 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Unless I am mistaken, I believe this has been nominated for delist before. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are indeed mistaken. This has never been nominated for delisting. howcheng {chat} 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist still Debivort 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

European Parliament

Composition isn't bad but the image quality is pretty poor - oversaturated, oversharpened and heavily shadow/highlighted, with significant artifacts particularly in the trees and around the sculler. The building isn't going anywhere, so there's not really any excuse for featuring a picture of this quality.

• Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist, the oversharpening is horrific. If you look at the original you can see why -- it was blurry to start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that the digital version is not a really good quality. Last time I had to face the fact that automatically digitized slides could not compete with images done with digicams. Today I would not put the image on the FPC list any more Andreas Tille, author

• Keep Well, it has mostly good quality. And it is significant. Sharkface217 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it more significant than any other picture someone could go and take any day of the week? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Go today and make a comparable photo (and no, I would not use this as an argument to keep a photo with technical constraints in FP). Andreas Tille, author

• Delist artificial sharpening reduces effective resolution and damages appearance, you cannot get information that is not there, this is not CSI. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Way oversharpened, low quality, etc... Inklein 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All I need to say.... Booksworm Talk to me! 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist and get another shot of it. Witty lama 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist for reasons stated by nom. --Bridgecross 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Strata Center

Strata Center

This isn't a terrible illustration but it's a bit lacking against today's FP standards: it seems tilted, the building is cut off at top left, the lamp-posts and overhanging branch in the foreground are distracting, most of the subject is in shadow and the brightly lit parts are blown. The image quality is pretty average and this version is also short of the resolution requirements (although Raul654 could probably provide a higher-res copy, I suspect the image quality of this would be poor, as the original was taken with what is now a fairly old, point-and-shoot 3.3MP digicam). It's been POTD twice and I suspect it's had its turn now - we should easily be able to get a better shot if we want a Strata Center FP.

• Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist aberation visible even on down-sampled version (less than 1/4 original size), low dynamic range, not up to today's standard --antilived ^{T | C | G} 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist just on lighting alone I would delist. --Bridgecross 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Sharkface217 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - it's Stata, btw, not Strata. Do we want a replacement? I'll be near it in January. Debivort 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• My numerous bads. I blame the geologists =). I won't move it now to save confusion, but apologies for not correctly calibrating my Mk.1 eyeball. A replacement would be excellent if you get the chance! --YFB ¿ 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist - good call, although it would be a shame to see it gone. If Debivort could get a good replacement, upload it with a name that makes more sense, then we could feature it, delete this old one and be done! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom -- mcshadypl ^TC 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rainforest walk

Rainforest walk - Australian National Botanic Gardens, by Fir0002

Edit 1, by Fir0002

I was looking through the panorama section of the FP gallery as linked from above somewhere and I notice this which looked like the white balance was way off (the plants are blue!) in thumbnail. When I opened the image to full size it looked horrible, way too much artificial sharpening and IMHO suffers quite similarly to another delist nomination happened just a while back.

• Nominate and Delist --antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Good call. --Bridgecross 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I always considered this one of the most beautiful panos I've done. --Fir0002 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Artistic-wise, yes I do think it is very good, but technical problems limited this pano. Now I see why you sharpened it so much as it is very blurred, even though it had been downsampled quite a lot. And near the path on the right it just doesn't look natural, it looks like it had been inked over or something. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That edit introduced the same posterization effect as your Hawk edit (the inked over spot antilived referred to). Lighting is a bit crass. That contrastyness makes it look appealing in the small-size versions, but the full-size isn't that great. --Dschwen 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't see the posterization you're talking about - can you crop/circle the area(s)? But either way I still like the original anyway --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist. I support the delisting as it was very much borderline for opposition when it was first nominated for me, but I think standards have improved a little since then. I actually find the edit worse than the original. I don't see the ferns as being overly blue on my display. They look about right. Its just the overall impact of the image that doesn't sit right with me. It is a bit too contrasty, the sunlight burns highlights on the far right the image and as I said in the original nomination, it would benefit from being taken on an overcast day as the light would be more diffused. It also seems to lean significantly towards the right of the frame. Its hard to tell if there is a consistent lean across the whole frame though as there are no cues on the left side. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I noticed that there is only a lean in the edit. The original lacks this lean but has the horizontal banding effect that I noticed in the original nomination. Is this a stitching effect of some sort? And speaking of stitching faults, the bottom left edge of the path in the original has a major stitching fault. Summary: Both have faults, but it seems the original has more. By the way, you should consider shooting with RAW if you haven't started already. Last time I asked, you claimed it wasn't necessary. In a situation such as this, it would certainly have helped.Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
    • Well in this particular image, not only was it not taken in RAW it was taken as a 2 megapixel image - I was on school camp with 2 GB card and space was getting tight! But in respect to the jpg/RAW battle I stick by the fact that RAW doesn't offer any advantages. Do you remember the ostrich nom? Well I actually shot that image in RAW as it was backlight and I thought I could get some more dynamic range in, and it gave me nothing extra in the blown areas. If I was to shoot this scene again I'd do it on a tripod (this one was hand held at ISO800) and do an exposure bracket. Overcast days are OK, but they tend to dull the colors --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I still stand by my point that at 2mp (downsampled from 8mp, 1/4 size), it should be sharp as a knife at full size, not like this. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but if you still believe that RAW offers no advantages, then you're completely ignorant about it. As for the shooting RAW with the ostrich nom, you also need to know what you're doing to maximise the benefits of RAW. When an image is overexposed as much as the highlights were in that shot, it doesn't matter if you use RAW or JPG. They're just plain blown. But if you had underexposed the image so that the highlights were no longer blown and brought out the shadows in RAW conversion, it would have looked FAR better than if you had done it with JPG. That is the sort of advantages you have. It doesn't automatically fix blown highlights if you don't control the exposure too. If you continue to shoot without consideration for this sort of thing, sure, you probably won't find any advantages with RAW. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you haven't tried to make the most of the format. In any case, perhaps you should invest in a portable hard drive based card reader. They cost much less than a single lens and it seems you would benefit from one if you keep running out of space. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • • With all due respect I think you're wrong - perhaps you'd care to post a comparison of a scene shot with a RAW and a jpg and show me the error of my ways ;-) --Fir0002 11:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, no I'm not going to bother handing it to you on a platter. But I will give you a url to read. It doesn't relate specifically to the example I gave but it does explain why RAW gives a better output than JPG. If you think I'm wrong, can you explain how I'm wrong? What exactly am I wrong about? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Well I think that you're wrong in saying that RAW offers advantages over jpeg. The article above gives no reasons at all to switch to RAW, with the only "advantages" are loose claims on imporved print quality which I know by experience is incorrect. In fact over at the Fredmiranda forums (where most people do use RAW), many people discribe a work flow where the original photo is taken in raw then converted out with DPP, then final tweaks in PS and then saved as a jpeg for printing. Why? Because most printers display even less dynamic range than a computer monitor and hence 16bit color of RAW is unnecessary and is not used in the print. Same with shadows, I can't see what usefull details RAW can get out of a pic that jpeg can't. I mean it's possible that an extremely dark picture taken in RAW can be massively lifted to reveal details that jpeg can't - but what's the pratical advantages? The quality of the lifted shadows is too rubbish to even consider using (except if you are a spy!). I might shoot a scene some time in the future with RAW and jpeg and post comparisons - unless you want to. However in any case if you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest we move it somewhere else as it is becoming irrelevant to this delist nom --Fir0002 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
        • One more thing... You're right, overcast days can dull the colours somewhat, but think about it.. This image was for the most part shaded from the sunlight anyway so the colours would have remained basically the same. What I was saying was that the bright overexposed parts lit by direct sunlight would not have been burnt out so much if it was an overcast day. You're right though. At the very least it would benefit from being shot on a tripod. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah OK fair enough - I'll add that to the wishlist for things I should have done --Fir0002 11:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Original looks like the saturation was jacked up by 500%. Both original and edit 1 are too busy and not pleasing to the eye. Noclip 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - I really like this image, but we have to be consistent and I'm certain this would fail if nominated today; also per Trialsanderrors. --YFB ¿ 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)