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 edit

Image:Mad scientist.svg edit

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • Keep - captures the subject well and supports articles like mad scientist quite well --Mikeo 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. I like this one, captures its subject well. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Bevo 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason for it to go. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Could not envision a better realization of a mad scientist. StarryEyes 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this be an SVG now? - Samsara contrib talk 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good portrayal of a mad scientist -   • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Geisha-fullheight.jpg edit

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 ~ VeledanTalk 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It's small, too. --Janke | Talk 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Rather on the small side. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is still the prevailing picture at Geisha - Bevo 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting it from FP won't change that... --Janke | Talk 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. It is still and excellent picture even if it is not of real geisha. Sotakeit 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a good example of what Geisha wore before WWII. Pschemp | Talk 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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? ~ VeledanTalk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size is fine. It could use a little work with coloring/contrast, but that's not enough reason for delisting. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-3 05:39
  • Keep--Deglr6328 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep KILO-LIMA 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:German_Monopoly_board_in_the_middle_of_a_game.jpg edit


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep I personally wouldn't vote to promote it today but there's no good cause to revoke it's status. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows what Monopoly is all about, like angle of board. Anchorage 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No cause to remove. enochlau (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, for the reasons stated above. - Bevo 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the angle, it couldn't have been any clearer. - JPM | 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist, Agree with Diliff. --Janke | Talk 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; should not be featured for the English wikipedia, badly aliased and grainy. - Pureblade | Θ 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very representative. Glaurung 07:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Image:Wolf spider attack position.jpg edit


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Keep. I agree precisely with Janke.--ragesoss 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Janke.–Joke 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Circeus. enochlau (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment on FP talk page. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for reasons given in nomination. - Samsara contrib talk 10:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Janke. CapeCodEph 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it'll be a while before this photo is beaten. ~ VeledanTalk 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Janke and others DaGizzaChat © 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Notre dame-paris-view.jpg edit

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep just because standards have changed in no way makes this an invalid feature picture. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep striking. -Ravedave 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • Delist. We have to apply current standards even to older FPs. Too small. Mikeo 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep nice picture--Ph89 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Starlette edit


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)[reply]

  • Delist Reason: it adds little to the articles it appears in - photojournalismCannes Film Festival, and news media - and it is a bit soft. --Janke | Talk 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Maybe I miss the point, but the subject is cut off.say1988 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As it is used in photojournalism, the subject is the photographers. ed g2stalk 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was only promoted a year ago with +14/-2. ed g2stalk 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ed g2s and the fact that it should not be delisted purely for subjective reasoning behind which articles it is in. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Good picture, I think it adds to the photographer related articles -Ravedave 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No compelling reasons to delist. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like the composition, although the photographers are slightly out of focus. --Dschwen 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ~ VeledanTalk 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Comment. "Soft" meant "not sharp", not "softcore". Janke knows we're not censored. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Keep as above. enochlau (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pu'u 'Ō'ō edit


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep its a very striking image. -Ravedave 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, good even though small. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Ph physical map.png edit

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 ~ VeledanTalk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) ~ VeledanTalk 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep a wikipedian MADE that. Thats badass. -Ravedave 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is very illustrative, thanks again for this good map. Mikeo 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, please upload bigger over the old one. Blank version would indeed be awesome too! --Dschwen 10:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Withdraw because a larger version is to be provided (and per clear consensus) ~ VeledanTalk 15:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circlestrafing.png edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Once there is an SVG I will make an animated version. -Ravedave 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to delist this one and replace it with an animated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's see what Ravedave will provide. The presentation needs to be clearer than this. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

SVG version is finished, see right. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an animated GIF as well, just because I always wanted to do that. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bit fast? BrokenSegue 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's slower now... -- grm_wnr Esc 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Alright, I'd say demote the current version and promote the svg and this animation. BrokenSegue 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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 ~ VeledanTalk 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ~ VeledanTalk 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Han Civilization edit


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    So we're negotiating policy? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why show a single country's viewpoint? Isn't that a bias? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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 talkcontribs 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Just keep on meddling in politically biased stuff, to make Wikipedia unpopular together sooner. Kokot.kokotisko 10:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Randy Johnston () 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Joe I 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word "claimed" rids me of all doubt. Political Mind 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Epicyclic Gear Ratios edit

Epicyclic Gear Ratios

Too low res

  • Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ~ VeledanTalk 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • put it together to rock back and forth --Astrokey44 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Bevo 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Increase the number of frames for smoother motion. deeptrivia (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2': Title should be "Epicyclic gear train". deeptrivia (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Chicago Skyline edit

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)[reply]
  • Delist. Blurry/grainy not a high enough resolution--Childzy talk contribs 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It is a good shot, but it is grainy and poort resolustion. Political mind 12:43, 14 May 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Get over it Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. I like the contrast between city and clouds/water. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:13

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

Pangong Lake edit

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)[reply]
  • delist too small Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Besides the problems already mentioned, it's oversharpened. -- moondigger 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep per AJ24. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Please see Discussion Page. Thank you. -- AJ24 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delist too small--Vircabutar 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentfor the record image size is 800 x 536 px. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not enough problems to warrant delisting. --Fir0002 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • You're damn right it's not. It's a seriously disguted Fir0002 --Fir0002 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Nobody has personally attacked you or anything. What are you disgusted about? --liquidGhoul 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Take a comparable photo yourself or stop bickering. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • What are you talking about Ghirla? --liquidGhoul 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Shreshth91 -- Samir धर्म 06:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The vignetting in the top-left ruins it for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Viva La Vie Boheme 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per AJ24 -- Lost 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Emperor Penguins edit

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)[reply]
  • Delist. Too small, blown highlights. Something more encyclopedic would show an entire penguin. -- moondigger 20:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. --Glaurung 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfect illustration of Antarctica on a sunny day, besides the penguin merits. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rather good for such a hard to obtain image. Ian¹³/t 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Vircabutar 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist. Its nice, but not exceptional. There must be much better images than this. -- AJ24 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elk Fire edit

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)[reply]
  • Keep other than the filename there is nothing wrong with the picture. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't you see all the artifacting? The blocky squares all over, and the bad quality? —Vanderdecken ξφ 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Per Vanderdecken Imaninjapirate 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Have any of you guys actually been in a wildfire? This is an amazing photo. --Fir0002 06:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delist as per above. Dionyseus 06:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a stunning image even if it is not perfect. Thue | talk 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Above. AJ24 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this make any difference to any of the previous votes?Vanderdecken ξφ 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Cribananda 07:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Joe I 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's very sad that an image like that could be somewhat beautiful--Vircabutar 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist, I think the quality is really too bad for FP standard. --Daĉjoпочта 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)[reply]
  • keep. say1988 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once in a many many lifetime shot. -Ravedave 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep It's a great shot. I'll see the burning forest through the technical trees. --Bagginz 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thunder Cloud edit

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)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. -- moondigger 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always loved this photo despite the size --Fir0002 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent scene. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:05
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist too small, artifacts --Glaurung 06:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cribananda 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment There is another version, but it has a lot of problems. --liquidGhoul 09:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not support Edit 1. The Edit 1 image looks unauthentic and pinkish. -- AJ24 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Great pic despite the size. --jjron 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cartoon_horse edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment. The horse is galloping, not troting. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for that very needed information. -- AJ24 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Delist--Vircabutar 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an illustration of cartoon animation; being cartoony is perfectly fine for that. --Davepape 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep --Fir0002 07:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent animation based on Eadweard Muybridge's pictures --Glaurung 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't think they were going for realism on this one. gren グレン 02:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's supposed to be cartoony. It shows the motion of galloping excellently. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - the cartoonishness is, IMO, part of the point. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Gnangarra 03:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr.Keep, or how I learned to love the animated horse. -Ravedave 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, illustrates its articles very well. --Dschwen 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

monopoly edit


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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Looks great. --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Should we by default delist images that get nominated for removal independently more than n times? - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • delist per nom--Vircabutar 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep lokks great Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist and reshoot. Too small, lacks DOF. --Dschwen 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

eskimodog edit

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        P.S. Keep. -- Robert Southworth 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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 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, 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)[reply]
                • 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 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)[reply]
                  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment. If this photo isn't encyclopedic of American Eskimo Dog, than what would be? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • IMO the background isn't enough out of focus ! What's that "sharpness everywhere" madness ? Ericd 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Captures the dog perfectly. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

towerofhanoi edit

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)[reply]
  • Neutral. I see no graininess whatsoever. What are you referring to? -- moondigger 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • I don't understand what you call graininess in such a picture. Ericd 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with it at all. PPGMD 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  •   Delist - Bernard's version is far superior. Jono (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Looks good to me. -Ravedave 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retained. 3 Delist, 3 Neutral, 7 Keep --Fir0002 10:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mad_scientist edit

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)[reply]
  • delist!--Vircabutar 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: Image:Piratey, vector version.svg and Image:Villianc.svg should remain featured images as well. —Keenan Pepper 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very good depiction of a mad scientist. I see no problem with quality. --liquidGhoul 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. --Fir0002 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It doesn't fit "be Wikipedia's best work," IMO. -- moondigger 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Delist unencyclopedic. -- Samir धर्म 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a very good illustration of a mad scientist and I don't see any quality issues with it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Ric36 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  •   Keep per Dante. Jono (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist. I have always thought that this one is utterly useless and ridiculous as a featured picture. mstroeck 04:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Kizor and Stock character. -Seidenstud 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • SVG : Scalable Vector Graphic I don't think a size requirement has any sense with vector graphics. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Featured Pics should be more than just photographs. howcheng {chat} 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Not very encyclopedic. —Aiden 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no need to be boring to become serious and credible. Ericd 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

wolfspider edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite why you chose to Keep? -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Like I said on Discussion, a vested interest... -- AJ24 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per LiquidGhoul. Also doesn't meet resolution requirements. (Sorry, Fir.) -- moondigger 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • (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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing so substantively wrong with this picture that it should be delisted. --Bagginz 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if you think a better image can be created then do so. Gnangarra 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep -Ravedave 07:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist Pretty good photo is too small. -Seidenstud 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

emperor_gum_moth edit

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)[reply]
  • 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. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist since you guys (wikipedians) always complain about the overblown white area
  • Keep Per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
If as see any I'll take them, the problem is the rarity of the event. --Fir0002 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep I think we need to chill out on "blown highlights" -Ravedave 07:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep This picture deserves its FP status. I've seen worse blown highlights in National Geographic. --Bagginz 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Moondigger's remarks above in the Wolfspider delisting page (concerning comparisons). -- AJ24 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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

Paris from Notre Dame edit

Paris view from Notre Dame

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

  • Nominate and delist. --Daĉjoпочта 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)[reply]
  • Keep --Vircabutar 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  •   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)[reply]
    • I'll see what I can do next time I'm by there. THEPROMENADER 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Though would prefer a higher res version. --jjron 10:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Too small, wondeful content. HighInBC 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Olegivvit 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist again. --Dschwen 18:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Great picture but far too small. -Seidenstud 04:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - too small. —Aiden 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

marine_vietnam edit

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 " 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Oops, Cryptic uploaded a revised image. Didn't see that clearly. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto Moondigger. --Davepape 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moondigger. PPGMD 15:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Then why did you question it I quote "...but it does not depict a marine " 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all the reasons listed above and those likely to follow. TomStar81 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm back from the vacation. Keep per users above. - Darwinek 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Federal Lands in Southern Nevada edit


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)[reply]
  • Keep. It was made by a Wikipedian. That's enough "wow" factor for me. howcheng {chat} 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. It's professional, clear and informative: everything a map should be.--Bagginz 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Delist. It doesn't matter who made'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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a great example of what Wikipedia should have more of. "wow factor" be damned. Middenface 09:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It wows me more than yet another flower or bug. User:Angr 11:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Air Force One over Mount Rushmore edit

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)[reply]

Comment; the picture nolonger seems to be in Mount Rushmore. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great photo. Still features prominently on Air Force One article. --Fir0002 01:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Highly famous image of AF1. -- AJ24 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Wonderful photograph. Excellent illustrative value. Fg2 21:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it can't really be replicated and the quality isn't that bad. gren グレン 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shows nice shine on wings noting how clean the aircraft is kept. -- Willtriv 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

India-locator-map-blank edit


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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist. Exactly the same thing I thought when I saw it on the front page. Duran 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Peta 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delist Absolutely agree with joniscool98! --Vircabutar 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Excellent locator map, well researched treatment of a complex topic. -- Avenue 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Per others.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK18:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    user's first edit -- Lost(talk) 04:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Outriggr HighInBC 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Emperor Penguins edit


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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep--Vircabutar 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep --Fir0002 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PPGMD 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • I wondered about the copyright too, and found this: 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
        • 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 [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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
  • Keep --ZeWrestler Talk 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as per last time. --jjron 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Moondigger. --KFP 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unacceptably small, also blown highlights. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Far too small, far too many artefacts in the sky. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - its worthy. Re-delisting over and over bothers me too. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ireland High Cross edit

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)[reply]

  • Delist. As nominator Arad 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I see Edit 2 and like it. So I would say: Repalce With Edit 2 Arad 20:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist Wonderful and striking image, well composed, but too small and too many jpeg artifacts. HighInBC 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep PPGMD 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GarrettRock 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep -- meets all criteria. --Ineffable3000 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delist or change to new Old one is too small and has too many artifacts. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Too small. - Marmoulak 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Replace with new version; great work, SG.--ragesoss 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • You seem to misunerstand. We are trying to remove it from Featured Picture status. NauticaShades(talk) 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support replacing with Edit 2 only --Fir0002 00:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Antarctica satellite globe edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Replace per Night Gyr. Davepape.--Andrew c 21:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Replace wit full-res image, but fix black ocean part first. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shuffle edit


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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, it was just promoted. PPGMD 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as closer of the nomination. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per consensus of original nomination. Too soon to nominate for de-listing. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is just an attempt to change a result which went against your opinion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is in focus, and this was JUST promoted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Come on! --Dschwen 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep — It's black and white! Run for the hills! ♠ SG →Talk 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep as per above and original nomination. - jlao 04 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hansom Cab edit

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.

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist too small, not amazing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alvesgaspar --Fir0002 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size alone is not a sufficient reason for delisting. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, he's the photographer. howcheng {chat} 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Buddhabrot edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of our FPs only illustrate one article. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would choose to keep it if the resolution was changed. --Ineffable3000 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Night Gyr and Howcheng Imaninjapirate 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, although I prefer the slightly prettier version here. SnurksTC 08:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Epicyclic gear ratios edit

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Puma5d04 05:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the nominator recognizes this is a misake, the picture is quite large Alvesgaspar 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Bevo 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

HorseAndPlough edit

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Replace with the larger one, though. NauticaShades 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridgecross. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep high resolution version. Alvesgaspar 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high res version, seems fine to me. Terri G 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high res version. Jumping cheese   Cont@ct 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

UK Roundabout edit


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, per above.Bob talk 11:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Comment Why everyone is driving in the wrong side of the road? ;-) Alvesgaspar 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[