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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 02:45:05 (UTC)
Reason
As I understand it (which I admit is not well), this image was generated by a device that records the movement of particles in three dimensions and then renders it in two. So essentially, this is a computer-generated image. The original data is obviously much more precise than what is contained within this image. Thus there's nothing to prevent an SVG or PNG that would have much more information rather than this relatively low-resolution JPEG. EV is high, however. I will notify original nominator and uploader.
By current standards, it's a fairly soft, blurry, noisy, and slightly low-res image, and you can hardly even discern from it the actual shape or structure of the globe that the plasma is in. As with most of our delisted images, it's clearly not awful, but I don't think it would ever pass these days, and that should really be what we need to ask ourselves with delistings. It's clearly used in a number of articles, but we're not debating the usefulness of the image, just its status as FP. We do also already have this video which I think is superior in illustrating the subject.
Why? There is a better picture now? --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about whether there is a better picture, although that would certainly be a good reason too and as I said, we have also featured this video which I would argue is more illustrative. The issue is mainly just about whether this image meets the current standards we expect of a FP now. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 13:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pending a better picture.--Luc Viatour (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What specifically is your objection to the quality of this image? Seems pretty technically sound. — raeky(talk | edits) 11:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This paper clip which was under the water level, has risen gently and smoothly. Surface tension prevents the paper clip from submerging and from overflowing the blue glass.
Reason
This image sole use in an article is in surface tension. Its use there is being challenged since the water doesn't look like water but like rubber. I have been reverting its deletion from that article mainly on the basis that is a FP and that the creator affirms that surface is water and looks like that because is refracting the blue of the glass. I don't think I am right when reverting on the basis that it is an FP alone and it is true that it doesn't look like water. If that issue gets reassessed I will fill with more reasons to revert its deletion from the article. If it gets replaced by a better image even better.
Oh, I see. I was trying to show my encouragement to photographers to produce a replacement. What is FWIW? Never managed to guess the meaning of this acronym. (the people in the talk page are noticed already if that is what you meant) franklin 13:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always read it as "for what it's worth". This page also lists "for whoever is wondering". J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 'for what it's worth'; in other words, it may or may not be relevant to this discussion, depending on who you ask :-). --jjron (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI (For Your Information - sorry, another acronym) Franklin, there's nothing to stop someone from removing a FP from an article. It would be frowned upon if it was removed just to make way for another lousy image, but if there are genuine reasons, the fact that it's a FP should not be a factor. So I don't think this delist is necessary if the purpose (as per the surface tension talk page) was simply to remove it from the article. But as you also say, Surface tension is the only article that it illustrates currently so if it were removed and another appropriate home for it could not be found, it would also become ineligible to be a FP and the delist nom would have a much stronger case. As for my opinion, I'd vote to Keep it, unless consensus is that it be removed from the article. I don't think it does such a poor job of illustrating the subject, and while I agree that it looks somewhat like a membrane, that is sort of what surface tension creates, does it not? It sounds like the fault is perhaps the clarity of the caption, rather than the image itself. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info The image has been removed again (not by me) then the nomination makes sense, I guess!? franklin 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. I raised my objections to the removal on the talk page there. No conclusion has really been reached on the subject yet. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image remains in the article with no consensus to remove/replace it. This can be re-nominated for delisting if something changes. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a delist/replace with a higher resolution version and a complete reedit of the photograph. The difference between the old and new version is especially noticeable at the face where the current FP overemphasizes midtone contrast but doesn't do much with the shadows. We get more of the expression in her eyes now. Better dust/scratch cleanup, etc. Compare to unedited File:Golda Meir.jpg.
Comment. I would support (even though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of real detail gained by the higher res version, as it's very soft), but I think I prefer the contrast in the previous version. Her face in particular seems a bit washed out and lacking shadows in the proposed replacement. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the new version looks washed out. The contrast in the previous version seems to be less flat, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will give it another pass if you really think so. IMO the original version was far too contrasty for soft indoor lighting. Have a look at the original; didn't want to darken her face too much. But will do one more edit for comparison. Might need to upload it tomorrow morning (California time). Durova390 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can only speculate about the lighting used in this photo, but I would imagine that it was all natural/ambient and not a 'studio' type shot. If so, notice her shadow on the sofa. The light appears to be coming in at a fairly low angle, which suggests to me that it was sunlight through a window, and sunlight isn't usually soft. I'm only guessing but I don't think I would assume it was soft lighting. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 11:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a second edit. The lighting is coming from at least two sources; this has double shadows. The shadows on the sofa and the pilaster don't appear to be particularly harsh; it looks more like the editor on the current FP overemphasized midtone contrast. The result looks great in thumbnail but I don't think it holds up so well at full resolution. Anyway, Commons requires 2 MB and larger files for its FP consideration. So it was necessary to start from scratch to get something that would qualify there. Choose whichever you think is best. Regards, Durova390 09:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the edit improves the contrast a little. By the way, just a FYI: AFAIK, Commons doesn't require 2mb (megabytes) and larger files. It requires 2 megapixels and larger. The former is a measure of the number of digital bits which comprise the image file, and the latter is a measure of the number of pixels in the image - big difference. The original already qualified for Commons FPC with 4.37 megapixels (1822 x 2400 pixels). Ðiliff«»(Talk) 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are; kick me for reading comprehension. ;) At any rate, it makes sense to work from the best scan available. Comparing the current FP version against the unedited original it was disappointing to see how it had been handled. Looks decent in thumbnail, but doesn't hold up very well at full resolution and was cropped too low. Durova394 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support its is not in use (as a result of resent edits). The additional space from above helps to the leaning of the head. The column now is not chopped by a crop that is not that necessary. franklin 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist/replace Alternate Edit. Per nom and discussion above. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Alt Edit per Diliff. I do agree that the new version doesn't gain much in detail due to softness, but with the alternate edited to lessen the wash-out feel, I don't see why we shouldn't replace it. upstateNYer 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Alt Edit per above. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole point of the succession of edits in the original nomination was in fact to bring out the detail in her face while keeping the overt grain of the background in check. Neither of the two proposed alternatives help in this context, in fact they mostly look like the rejected Edit 2. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose The crop and contrast of the orignial makes the image look better... Both of these could be accomplished with another edit of the larger version... — raeky(talk | edits) 12:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The contrast of the original remains better. I would like a larger size file, but to exchange for quantity for quality is not good, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For delisting: Female House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Bairnsdale, VictoriaNot for voting: Isn't this better?
Reason
Background does not meet current FP composition standards (i.e. Criteria 1c: it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements.). Common bird, not particularly difficult to capture higher quality image. Better picture of the same species and gender with better composition and background exists. Only used in one article, in a non-prominent and non-gender specific section while much higher quality FP exists.
What are the current composition standards for the background? franklin 02:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the main subject is clearly distinguished from the background like this or this, and not likethis or this. Elekhh (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: No longer our best work with house sparrows. The lighting and resolution are also drawbacks, not just the composition. As well as the current FP that Elekhh linked to, this image is also superior. Maedin\talk 07:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and reasons given in previous nominations --Muhammad(talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not great composition and detail could be better. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the composition plays with a brown over blueish, opposed colors in the color wheel which is somewhat superior to brown over green of must of the alternatives. franklin 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but with more contrast could look more like this or this, or this. Elekhh (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The House Sparrow's primary habitat is near human civilization, and this image gives a good impression of it. --ZooFari 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's just one aspect. For FP status an image needs to meet all criteria, and this one is lacking contrast between the subject and the background, unlike this or this, which also reveal the urban habitat, and illustrate the article. Elekhh (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the not for vote Well. Not that the comparison is going to do good or bad to the nomination but, the not for voting has a sort distracting background. If it were all blue or all green probably it would. franklin 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
576 × 461 pixels, file size: 175 KB. Encyclopedic, but not even close to minimum on the technical side. A 2005 nomination that may have been the site's best back then, but just isn't up to par anymore.
Delist Fails current criteria, by a long shot. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I remember this being used recently as an example of where historical value trumps dimensions. That's a bad lesson to be teaching people, interesting image but way below standards. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep I tend to agree with the arguments put forth in the previous delist attempt--historical value trumps the size in this case. The information is conveyed acceptably. Cowtowner 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The previous delist attempt was two and a half years ago. It's been a very long time since editors have promoted a nomination with technical shortcomings as severe as this (been a regular since late 2007 and can't recall it once). No one is suggesting deleting the image from the project, but if this were a new FPC nomination it would probably be speedily closed. This simply isn't Wikipedia's best content. Not by a longshot. Durova352 15:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and utterly agree with this sentiment. This is just too awful to be a FP, despite its EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if someone ever finds an image to better represent such an important period in the history of the American bison, or human factors causing endangered species then I will vote to replace this image with that. As of now this is what we have and historical value does trump dimensions. If it didn't then we would have no old photos because their dimensions are usually resultant from scan quality and not the original image. This image is incredibly striking and is one of the few images of this size that deserve to be featured. An image like this is better quality but just doesn't have the same effect of scale. grenグレン 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To a degree you are correct, but I thought it was a pile or rocks before reading the caption, it's that bad. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate the sentiment, the caption is there for that reason; the same could likely be said about a number of other FPs. I've also changed my earlier vote to a weak support. Cowtowner (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It's not the size, it's the detail. I certainly can't tell that those are bison skulls. We can make exceptions for historic images, but this is too far below the standards for an exception. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am against delisting in the first place .,, it is like rerwriting history. GerardM (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should abstain, as your voting skews the process. I don't think "I don't like the process" holds up that well anyways. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I really don't see why everyone is so mad about this picture. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The poor quality image is unrecognizable without the caption. Featured pictures means worthy pictures themselves, not have to resort to the one line of "caption", but the picture is far away from that standard. --21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit history says this ^ ^ ^ was Caspian blue voting.
Delist for poor image quality. However I would consider it for a Valued Picture nomination. Is there a straightforeward process of transfer from WP:FP to WP:VPICS? Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you can't retake this and there were no "megapixels" in 1870s for anyone to complain about them.--Avala (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The wow factor has me, but not fully. upstateNYer 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gren. A rare monument to such an abject human folly, it blows me away every time I see it. Would a bigger version have any more impact? No. Unique, striking, poignant, encyclopedic and irreplaceable. Keep. mikaultalk 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think is reasonable to assume that a better version would have more impact. One has to admit that at 250px as it appears in the articles is not recognisable that those are skulls. And even a zoom to max size is very unclear. Certainly is a great image, but its visual quality is very low. Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader has not edited since 2005.[1] The original nominator has made fewer than 100 edits in 2009, most of which were in January.[2] Will notify the latter. Durova357 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's more procedural than anything. With a close nom like this, I prefer to see everything go by the book. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. Should've thought of that myself. Thanks for the catch. :) Durova357 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikaul, et al. If there's a comparable higher quality version I would be happy to support a replace, but until then this looks irreplaceable, and huge EV. There seems little reason to shuffle this sort of stuff out of FP, when things with a fraction of the EV are still going in just because they're big. --jjron (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I am going to make the assumption that this photograph is essentially irreplaceable for what it represents - photography in the field was still rare in the 1860s and 1870s, and in frontier country even more so. There are not likely to be very many any photographs that illustrate large piles of dead buffalo in this way, at least not that have survived and are accessible publicly. I also assert that this has very high EV in the sections of the articles it illustrates - it shows the deliberate extermination of a species in a very clear and visible way. It also is a powerful image that has an effect on many viewers. Despite this, it should be delisted. Some things that are amazing just simply can't be featured pictures, and this is one of them. It is a particularly bad photograph in almost every respect except for its notable subject, even for a photo taken in the early 1870s - it is not due to technical limitations of photography at the time that this is bad. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On one hand this is an immensely irreplaceable image and overwhelming EV, on the other it's a horrible resolution. Presumably the original for this scan still exists, if only it could be tracked down and digitized by today's standards. I'm still in favor of keeping these historic images around, do we even remotely have anything better to illustrate the bison slaughter during this time? — raeky(talk | edits) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Screw the idiotic size guidelines, if a picture has high EV and is irreplaceable which this is then there is no good reason to delist it and those who want to delist this should really go through the archives and see the spirit of the older days of FPC and if they can't then in my opinion they should stop coming to this page. Cat-five - talk 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's blatant OR to connect the two images. Nezzadar[SPEAK] 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It's not my opinion that the artwork I linked to was inspired by the bison skull photo, it says so under the picture. To quote: "This piece is inspired by the famous photograph from the 1870's of the great American bison slaughter." Anyway, I would have voted keep having never see the artwork. --SilversmithHewwo 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome of this discussion will have consequences for future featured pictures. Do those in support think that we should abolish all size and quality requirements for FPC, for images we don't think we can find another example of? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that how it already is? — raeky(talk | edits) 01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only for images that are already featured. Durova364 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have some reasonably bad quality images File:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg, File:GoldenSpikev3.jpg, File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg The first I would nominate for delisting, the second has been nominated and encountered the same arguments as are presented here (despite the fact that it is an poor piece of Civil War era photography, the third is of questionable FP status and should be delisted, and the last we give up quality requirements because its value is in representing what a first photograph is, not in its pictorial representation of the buildings. This image File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg is perhaps the closest to the one in question here - low image quality, but essentially irreplaceable and of high value for a number of reasons. I might be a hypocrite, but I think that one should be kept, and Buffalo Pile delisted.
And just this week I nominated File:Pale Blue Dot.png, which is of low quality, but is both at the limit of technology available (no better image will be able to be produced of the Earth as seen from outside the Solar System for at least two decades) and represents its subject in an important way because of its low quality, not in spite of it. Low quality does nothing to improve our understanding of dead buffalo. I would also gladly support this if a suitably licensed version became available, because it represents the best available for the time. (I might just email them and ask them to license it under GFDL or CC). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would like to thank Durova. Looking through our historic images it becomes obvious just how many have been restored and nominated by her, and how she has improved Wikipedia and established what should be a historic featured picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great that libraries are digitizing their old works, but some things just either are not digitized yet, may never be, or lost, or not publicly available anymore. There has to be exceptions for historically unique and irreplaceable images that just ooze EV to be nominated. The example recently is pictures of the Kaaba, and for that matter any good image inside a Islamic mosque. Due to their religion banning cameras/photos anything of good quality would be near impossible for some of these holy sites. Why should they be excluded from FP status? — raeky(talk | edits) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Mostlyharmless for the kind words. Since doing the buffalo soldiers restoration my skills have improved a bit and it might be possible to get a better edit out of that material, if it were up for delisting (have a very full plate with new work so haven't tried). Raeky, one of the main reasons I try to delist images such as this one is because we've got free culture volunteers talking to the great libraries. This is one of the images that stands in the way of our credibility as a project. It's cheaper and easier for institutions to rush off a mediocre job like this than to emulate the really high quality work the Library of Congress is doing. Access to historic media isn't a passive matter; increasingly we have to talk to institutions and do outreach and persuade them to digitize at a high standard. Do you want this image to convey "good enough"? Because we have to either direct away from the galleries where this sort of image appears, or else run the risk that this is as high as they aim. Durova364 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point, but I doubt this one image will convince a library to JUST provide just small resolution images. I'd really like to replace this image with ANYTHING better that portrays the slaughter of the bison like this. I'm _sure_ the LOC has an image somewhere, probably not digitized yet. But anything that can show the tens of thousands of bison that was killed during this time would replace this. Sadly I think this is all we got that conveys the numbers. Thats why I don't fully support delisting it. — raeky(talk | edits) 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be anything, ever. This may be all we ever get. For many things there is precious little that can be found to illustrate them, and many articles will never get illustrations. Others will have very poor quality illustrations, because no high quality illustration was ever made. That is the way things are, unfortunately, but simply being the only illustration of something is not a free pass, otherwise we would have thousands of poor quality "featured pictures" representing "Wikipedia's best work" It has been my understanding (and I have assumed of others), that lower quality can be accepted where there are very strong reasons for it, and that lower image quality can be accepted for particularly historic images (although here we can expect that drawing, painting and other forms of illustration are given precedence as the high quality standards of their time), but that image quality is always taken into consideration. In the case of this delist, it seems to have been ignored entirely, and that arguments for keeping consist of asking users to ignore it. In practice it is expected of newly nominated historic images, but there is an inconsistency with older images such as this and the delist mentioned above, something I would suggest can be explained as loss aversion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that new images of lower quality can't be nominated if there is nothing better to be found. Both rule #1 and #2 have those exceptions. So where do you get that only "already featured" part? — raeky(talk | edits) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this only me thinking that how come several editors who are not WP:FPC regulars found the delist request and visit the page to support to keep the image?--Caspian blue 06:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cowtowner, Grenavitar, GerardM, Avala, UpstateNYer, Mikaul, jjron, Muhammed, Raeky, Silversmith have all voted on this page to keep. I respect the right of every one of those participants to do so, and consider their opinions on this image sincere (even if I hope to change their minds). I don't think that is a fair statement - they all participate regularly at various times and should not have their participation questioned. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know that most of them you're referring to are regulars, but I did talk about non-regulars. I said it because I felt odd for people who just came to oppose the delisting. Your comment is rather harsh.--Caspian blue 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I should have checked - I missed Cat Five. Cat Five has just the same right to an opinion as any other. I thought your vague assertion of bad-faith voting (I'm not sure how else you'd like us to read your comment) was quite uncalled for. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not name names unlike you just to disagree with me. Moreover, don't you think that your comment is "bad-faithing" on my question? --Caspian blue 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's quite a few lurkers that don't have occasion to voice an opinion on nominations or delists, except when they feel strongly about something. If your suggesting someone is trolling to get votes here maliciously, I highly doubt that. As for this image, I'm only weekly supporting keep, but I'd be more inclined to delist this and have it voted as a VP. The quality is awful no doubt. But this particular subject enlists deep feelings in me, such a massive amount of these animals was killed in a very short period of time. This image speaks volumes to the damage man can do to an ecosystem or organism. I just wish we had a better version of it. — raeky(talk | edits) 07:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..I did not insinuate that somebody is trolling here, so no thanks for the hyperbole and accusation. I just find the image very lower in quality than other images that meet the FP criteria. That can give false impressions that any historical image can be FP regardless of the quality and size. However, I see now that why people want to keep the image, "ecosystem" although I'm not persuaded by the rationales because the white objects are not recognizable without the caption.--Caspian blue 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the picture was clear as day you would still need a caption to know what the skulls were since the average person can't easily distinguish one animal skull from another. Also, it is amazing to discover what looks like a pile of rocks is actually skulls IMO. --SilversmithHewwo 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Durova. Yes, the picture is valuable, but the quality of _this particular reproduction_ is bad. The remedy is to find a better-quality copy of the photo and do a competent scan of it. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if that can't be done? — raeky(talk | edits) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we accept that we have no featured picture for that subject. It's what we normally do. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the actual image, they will scan it for you for a fee... if someone wants to pay them to get a high res version of this picture. lol. — raeky(talk | edits) 05:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I live nearby that museum (relatively). I doubt I could negotiate a free scan though =(. Cowtowner (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written the library that has the original print and requested a better version. They replied that the request is being forwarded to another person's attention and should receive a decision next week. Durova369 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be amazing if we could get a higher quality version of this photograph. — raeky(talk | edits) 09:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could equally be terrible - if we simply get a larger copy of what is still a poor quality image from the time, and everyone simply votes "keep cause it's larger". I hope that doesn't happen. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended pending results of Durova's request to library. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Received a reply a few days ago. They seemed willing to donate a higher resolution image. Replied promptly, but no followup yet. Delays might be due to the holidays (not sure). Durova383 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's very first POTD, to get a sense of how old this is. Still technically barely meets size requirements with a 1000x dimension, but far far far too fuzzy and artefact'y to meet current standards, IMO.
How did you find an artifact among all those little leaves? Maybe there are but I am having a hard time finding them. Fuzzy is way more apparent. franklin 03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the "barely meets size requirements" simply cannot be a reason for delist, as it does meet the size requirements. It is a very nice image, promoted with broad consensus (10:0). Elekhh (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I'm not using barely meets size requirements as a reason to deslist. But being clearly fuzzy and artefact'y (more along the rocks, to answer your question franklin) is. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is not that I want to contradict you, (since an artifact can be small and hard to find and you could have seen it in a place that I didnt notice) but, where exactly is it? We are supposed to look at the image at 100% right?, no more than that. If I zoom more than that yes I start seeing some pixelation but I guess that's normal. Can you give the color code and the area where the artifact or artifacts are? franklin 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All over the white coloration on the rocks to the right. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Composition and lighting aren't great, technical quality is lacking. Wouldn't pass FPC today. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we should try to re-assess all FPs every day, so "wouldn't pass today" doesn't really mesh, especially when we have many great FPs that only made it second time 'round, and the "barely meets size" gets my usual commentary. Re-arranging your lighting in a gorge can be a difficult task. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very far from current FP standards. Relatively small, and not so special we need to keep it as a FP despite its shortcomings. Flickr has 3,000 free photos of Zion National Park. I'm sure a number of those are superior to this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC) (belated signature)[reply]
Actually just 2,100 if you apply all the filters [3], but note that this image does not illustrate the national park article, but specifically "The Narrows". So if you'll narrow down your search you'll find 278 results [4]. If you think any of these is better than nominate it as FP, but otherwise please reconsider your vote. Also pls don't forget to sign your comments. Elekhh (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What photos exist on Flickr don't define what an FP is. This simply doesn't meet the current technical standards, and it doesn't depict some rock formation that has exploded since it was taken so it's historical value is effectively naught. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just using the number of photos on flickr as an illustration of how easy and common it is to take photos of this national park. This really is not among the best in Wikipedia, especially when an army of people are hiking in this location and can potentially take photos. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. My point was in response to Elekhh's point that many of those photos aren't this good. But again, best photo on Flickr of a subject != FP. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that the best photo on Flickr defines FP, I only responded to the statement "I'm sure a number of those are superior to this". I think Calliopejen1 should check the validity of this affirmation and withraw it if unvalid. PS. Got your point about relatively "easy access" to the site. Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my point. I looked through the flickr photos of the narrows and found several of at least comparable if not better quality, though none of FP quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Talk:Montana State Capitol this is not the actual building. The LOC source indicates that this is a competition drawing and not the final design. Thus, its only EV would be in a discussion of the design competition for the building, which doesn't exist.
Articles this image appears in
None as of now (wasn't me who removed it from articles)
Yes and no. Per that source you link to, I would argue that it has good value for Arkansas State Capitol, as it was this design that got him the job, but the Arkansas article needs to be expanded. It still has little value for Montana. howcheng {chat} 08:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it has "some" EV for two or three articles... Elekhh (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think really only the Arkansas article, but it would have to be expanded first. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's pretty clear from the original discussion that participants thought this was a picture of the building and considered its EV accordingly. Also, I'm not sure it's the best image for George R. Mann; wouldn't File:Arkansas State Capitol.jpg work better? Chick Bowen 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find both images have high EV for the article (now both included), and I see no reason why wouldn't be place for 2 FPs, when a duck or a House Sparrow can have 2. :) Elekhh (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Very little EV. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a notable design for the Montana capitol because it wasn't chosen. howcheng {chat} 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say is notable for Montana as well (not only for the other two articles), as it was the winner of the first design competition for the Montana State Capitol [7]. Elekhh (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I concede the point. None of this information is in the article, however, so you can hardly fault me for my line of thought. Can you work on expanding the articles? It would really help to have the image in context, then. howcheng {chat} 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I actually posted a request at WikiProject Architecture a couple of days ago for this to be done, since American neoclassicism is neither my expertise nor my passion, but nobody showed up so far... So yes, I can work on the expansion. Elekhh (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question One of the other pictures in this set, File:Raven Manet B2.jpg, isn't used in any articles either. Any reason you didn't nom it as well? And a procedural questions as well: can the individual images of a set even be delisted or is it all or nothing? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, every image within the set is a featured picture in its own right. I did attempt to propose a separate featured sets procedure, but no one was too enthusiastic. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See article history and talk page. This was in the article until yesterday when a brief edit war occurred. Editors have paused to discuss the image and its placement. Please wait for normal editorial discussion to conclude before nominating for delisting. Durova412 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Obviously upside down, no need to ask an art professor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it's upside-down (look at the signature - it's clearly got an upside down E at the right and an M further on), but I see no need to delist it - a simple rotation would fix it. Time3000 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until the editorial matter is resolved. See Talk:The Raven#Which way is up?. After that we can make a decision. Agree with Time3000 - if consensus decides it should flipped, then it should be flipped. No reason to delist over that. JujutacularT · C 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, or rotate. I undid the close as "keep". I removed it from the article and provided the reliable sources to back the correct orientation, everything else is noise and was a waste of contributor's time. This problem was pointed out in the the first review, it has caused disruption ever since. cygnis insignis 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think this can be kept while it fails the formal criterion of inclusion in an article. We can keep it open for a little while, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this art professor thing: Has this individual been named and verified? Where would one find his or her Special:Contributions (if they're a wiki user)? Does the opinion of one expert trump, or obsolete the need for, peer-reviewed reliable sources (i.e. sources that constitute consensus among several experts)? Do we have an OTRS-style system for expert evidence that allows independent verification of what the expert said? Does selecting and/or asking an expert constitute Original Research? Does a problem of multiple testing and hidden data arise? (see Fabrication (science), esp., at the time of this writing, the third bullet point) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 delist votes (of a required 5) after much more than 7 days. Regardless of whether this meets the FP criteria, this nomination is an obvious keep. Feel free to re-nominate it once consensus develops at the article and its talk page. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this picture is pretty, is used well within an article and captures a moment well- I congratulate the photographer. However, I do not feel the technical quality is truly there- the colour doesn't look quite right, there appears to be a moderate amount of overexposure and the focus is a long way from fantastic (and when the space is taken into account, this isn't even a massive picture, pixel-wise). The lighting could also be better- the animal appears to be in shadow, while the water behind it is bright. The fact that the animal is albino both brings out the colour/lighting issues and raises questions of EV- this isn't a typical example of the animal.
this isn't even a massive picture, pixel-wise... ...2,064 × 1,413 pixels. While I appreciate the epiphany, it seems a bit ridiculous use this as a delisting argument and go on happily promoting 1600x1000 pixel pictures. --Dschwen 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's big enough, I was just meaning that its size could not be used to excuse other problems. It's certainly not my issue with the picture. I placed it in brackets for a reason :) J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question The putative original version (26 June 2005, 780,627 bytes = 762KB) is missing. Administrator epic fail? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's there. I'm assuming you can't see it because you're not an administrator. See here. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to question the basis of this nomination if there's no opportunity for normal users to work on the original version of the image. So maybe some administrator can get their ass into gear and re-upload the image so that it's accessible for everybody else as well? I remind you that it was uploaded and licensed with the intention of being available - why is it being withheld now? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand? The image is available on Commons? J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you were looking/what you were seeing, because I don't think it was on Commons. In any case, it definitely is now: File:Caribou from Wagon Trails original.jpg. White balance is noticeably different. Maedin\talk 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per the nominator. It wouldn't have a snowball's chance today. Interesting, but nothing special quality-wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 April 2010
Not comparable. Used in the albinism article, and in the article on the species to illustrate the growing albino population on a specific island. This image is used as a lead, for a "this is what the animal looks like", for which it is not suitable. As for the issue of providing an edit, we can discuss an edit when it is forthcoming; this current image, however, does not seem to be up to current standards. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong place to complain if you dislike the taxobox image. Sort it out on article talk please. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad taxobox image, but it's not a great one. I'm not sitting here and saying it shouldn't be in the taxobox, I'm just saying it shouldn't be a featured picture, as it is a long way from a typical specimen. It may alarm you to know that we are allowed non-FPs in taxoboxes. I am not challenging its inclusion in the article, but I certainly think a more suitable image could be forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image is used as a lead, for a "this is what the animal looks like", for which it is not suitable. I still read that as a complaint about inclusion in the lede. It does alarm me that you're clamouring for a "typical" specimen in the taxobox. First of all, what, in nature, is really "typical"? Colour variants are a fact of nature, and this individual survived into adulthood. Secondly, there isn't even another image available to reasonably put in the taxobox, so your reasoning for wanting to delist this remains absolutely atrocious. In terms of the composition, by criteria we've recently used, the image has high EV because it shows that the animal has a facultative swimming habit (see File:Caribou traversant la rivière aux Feuilles.jpg for proof from another subspecies), without obscuring most of the body. As for "forthcoming", there hasn't been another image in nearly five years now - do you have anything special to announce? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something is used in the lead of an article does not automatically mean that the EV is sky-high. This animal has been identified as "abnormal" or "atypical" in labelling it as albino- unless specificially illustrating that abnormality, a better image could be produced (the fact one has yet to surface has nothing to do with it- have a look around, request a few. If still nothing, wait) and so this is not feature-worthy. Regardless of this question, you can at least see the severe technical shortcomings when compared to the kind of thing being nominated now, I am assuming? J Milburn (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have just figured out that you've been completely ignoring what I've been saying. Well done - you had me there for a while. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. If I have failed to understand what you're saying, please try to explain it again. I have no problem with this being in the lead of the article, however, at the same time, I feel a better image could be used in the lead. Until something better comes along, it's ok to use, but that doesn't mean it's ok to feature. Take this image- not a bad lead image for Lady Gaga, but certainly not featurable. I would be able to quite consistently support its retention in the lead, while opposing its promotion as a featured picture. If this is not what you're talking about, then no, I haven't the foggiest. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PLW, if there are flaws with the image deal with them then try to replace it, the image has a high enough EV and is a good enough image that it shouldn't just be arbitrarily delisted. Since it seems like the washed out (for lack of a better word) areas are in the water reflections on the northwest and north (around the antlers) sections I'm not sure what can be done to remedy that but hopefully someone can give it a try. Cat-five - talk 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be nice, but having something as a featured picture on the off-chance someone will fix it is a little flawed. If this wasn't already a featured picture, would you be supporting it? Why should we have lower standards for things that already happen to be featured? J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an excuse to keep low quality FP's but I'll note that we used to have a lot of lower quality FP's and although some were just delisted many were replaced when a better one came up. If featured pictures are supposed to be the best of the best I challenge you to find a better picture of the subject to replace it otherwise unless it is a truly horrible picture that slipped through, which this is not, I see no reason to delist it. Cat-five - talk 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's the best we have" is no reason to feature it (or, in this case, to keep it featured). Pictures should be judged on their own merits. (If you feel there are other low quality FPs, go ahead and nominate them for delisting.) I ask you again- would you support it if it was nominated? If not, why fight to retain it? J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a SVG that do not have those problems in the edges. Abisharan (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m on a Mac and in both Safari and Firefox, the PNG is far superior. The SVG, for me, has white, stair-stepped lines between the squares. If the nominator is convinced of the virtues of the SVG, I suggest that the proper thing to do is to merely upload the SVG as a separate file rather than replace the original. Greg L (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SVG file is displaying poorly for me too, on both Mac/Safari and WinXP/Firefox. --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment …and the SVG also shows the same stair-stepping problem running Windows XP/Pro on a machine with a ATI Radeon HD 4850 when running both Internet Explorer and Safari. Greg L (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comet Yes, is that ImageMagick doing the resizing and PNG conversion in the background? Might be worth chucking it a tiny amount of blur until a better SVG renderer drops from the sky. Keep per Greg L and Abisharan. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, white hairlines between squares. Retain svg and link to it on image page, though. HereToHelp(talk to me) 03:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. That's a shame. Hopefully we'll be able to use this again some day.J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Observation I guess I will never figure out the shades of gray used in using non-free content. The picture’s licensing page mentions “Work for hire taken by a family photographer, work owned by Lisa Merriam” and The Official Web Site of Lucy Merriam has a big splash across this picture stating “All Rights Reserved. Do Not Copy; Do Not RePost.” Yet we used it and made it a Featured Picture. Is this because as long as the adults responsible for this young actress can exploit Wikipedia to their (and hers) advantage, then non-free content with oodles of copyright claims is OK? Someone explain this one to me, please. BTW, captivating pic. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple explanation is that the owner/author can put whatever restrictions they like on the photo, but if they have released it elsewhere (Wikipedia) under a free license like CC-BY-SA (which they have, there is an OTRS ticket), anyone can choose to use it under that less restrictive license. Once it's been released, it can't be taken back. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 22:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I was the one who handled the OTRS ticket- Merriam's mother, who paid the photographer in question to take the photo and owns the rights to the photo, released it under the Creative Commons license. As such, yes, elsewhere it may have various watermarks, but we are, and anyone else is, perfectly entitled to use it under the CC license. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then… Keep. I would prefer to keep the picture on Commons in order to permanently cement the fact that once done, people really do have the right, per the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, “to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work”—even if they don’t like it that her article isn’t here anymore. But maybe that’s just me? Talk about trying to have it both ways… BTW, captivating pic. Greg L (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean here. This vote is for keeping or delisting the image as a Featured Picture. Regardless of the outcome, the image will remain on commons. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn’t understand that. That’s good news as I don’t much appreciate the “have it both ways” tactic they’re trying. Don’t care isn’t a germane or helpful option so I’ll simply strike. However, like Milburn, I think it’s a shame as it is still an outstanding portrait of a child. IMO, it ought really to stay as an FP. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be a FP on the English Wikipedia as it has to illustrate an artile to qualify. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand you correctly, it seems to me an unnecessary exercise to vote whether or not to delist this picture if the rules say doing so must be done. It seems a bit like voting against Castro in a Cuban vote: “Sorry, that was the wrong vote.” Greg L (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a bureaucracy to uphold, and because this process often highlights improvements that can be made to salvage a FP. In this case, IMO we can't really reinstate the article, but we still have to follow process. You're welcome to vote however you like, but you have to follow up your vote with legitimate reasons. If you can't explain why the image should remain a FP even though there's no article, then your vote may be dismissed by the closer, but we'll give you the opportunity nonetheless. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good argument against *Wikipedia-style bureaucracy* from me? I’m not that good. Well then, Castro has been bery bery good to me. ;·) Greg L (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Diliffs previous comment, it is theoretically possible that you would find that the image fits well in another article, such as Blond or similar, which would than give a valid reason to vote for keep... --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOW I always thought it was spelt "blonde" - you learn something new every day... Gazhiley (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. :-) From the article: "Writers of English either use the spellings interchangeably or continue to distinguish between the masculine blond and the feminine blonde." Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
There is an alternate version according to which blond is an adjective and blonde a noun, each referring to either gender. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't really read the article tbh - just looked for pictures of pretty blonde ladies... :-D Gazhiley (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist insufficient EV. --Elekhh (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless someone can crowbar it into another article... Gazhiley (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't this picture be relevant on her page at Emma Lavery, which is the page for the character she played on All My Children? — raeky(talk | edits) 16:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since some people seem to prefer to keep this, let me suggest finding a use for it in child actor or child modeling. This is just a neutral suggestion, not an expression of opinion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change in status quo. Not a bad idea, Whiskey. It seems a better solution than letting this picture loosing FP status. I’ve never before seen a photograph quite like this. I added it to our Child modeling article, where I think it enhances the article quite well. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I think that's where it fits best, maybe even better than the original article, given the very unnatural feel of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has a suitable home. --Avenue (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Avenue. Greg L (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hooray! Remember to change the captions.J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Skyline is continuously evolving. Perusal at List of tallest buildings in Chicago shows a lot was underway in 2008 that was not in the 2006 image. Now much of it is complete and optimally we would have a 2010 image to replace this with, but currently the best standard lighting replacement is 2008.
Why list four images? Makes it horribly confusing. Suggest just showing the one you're nomming for delist and the proposed replacement and kill the others (give a text link maybe), unless you're putting up multiple noms for delist. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There exist two FPs of the skyline and I am letting the voters know. Also at the recent FP of the most sunrise all 4 were shown without confusing the voters. Some voters at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline at sunrise expressed an interest in seeing this actual replacement nomination. Also, since the point of FP is to select the best of images of a certain type, this presents a clear comparison that most voters would not be familiar with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is nothing wrong with having more than one FP of the same thing. Besides, your replacement, even though a higher resolution, does not include the left of the panorama. NauticaShades 10:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all means nominate your replacement for promotion. I'll support. But that doesn't mean that the current FP should be delisted. Perhaps the two images could be used in conjunction with each other (say, in List of tallest buildings in Chicago) to demonstrate the rapid pace of construction in Chicago. NauticaShades 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not currently in any articles. Thus, I can not nominate it and in List of tallest buildings in XXXX articles they do not show rapid pace of construction by comparative skyline photos. Everything is inferred from date of completion of buildings and buildings under construction lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you rephrase the second sentence? I'm not sure I'm understanding you. NauticaShades 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed replacement is not in any articles right now. I could add it to a few. However your suggestion to use it in List of tallest buildings in Chicago) to demonstrate the rapid pace of construction in Chicago is not in keeping with conventional methods of showing change in construction. As noted above, tables containing date of completion of buildings and other tables showing buildings under construction relay this information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the juxtaposition of the two images could provide a useful auxiliary method of relaying the information. NauticaShades 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, my reason for keeping is more sentimental than anything else. Truth be told, the replacement is simply of higher detail, and it seems silly than it can't be promoted because it isn't currently used in an article. I'll strike my vote. I still think the current FP can be used in some way, though. NauticaShades 13:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delist and replace. It seems to be common now to have two flagship panoramas for each city, one aesthetic and the other high-detail. Twice the resolution is a huge improvement for the high-detail version that we're debating now. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose D & R First because it is unwarranted as the first image still meets all the criteria to be a featured picture, secondly because it sets an extraordinarily bad precedent to replace not only an image (although that's more of an article level issue) but an FP as well every year just because the subject has changed, by that logic we should reshoot and delist and replace every photograph of a person or people because they have grown older, any natural formations that may have changed,..., the list is endless to the point of being ridiculous. Cat-five - talk 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I believe the proper way to deal with issues like this is to go article by article and see if there is a consensus to replace the current image with the newer one then of course if the older image is not used in any articles then I would not be opposed to delisting it. All that could be done after the new image got it's own seperate FP status. Cat-five - talk 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new one has advantages, but the 2006 one isn't cut off at the left and has better (less dull) lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was going to say why don't we remove the other lower quality images from the article and leave this image, but I don't think that it would be best served by doing that. These two images are from nearly identical viewpoints, so I don't foresee ever having the need for both of them being in the article. The new image is clearly superior. JujutacularT · C 00:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diliff's comment below. JujutacularT · C 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist in favor of superior image. Kaldari (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question. I mentioned it in the nom up the page, but there's been no reply - compared side by side, the new one looks to be considerably flatter and less steep than this one. Given they're both taken from an almost identical position, it looks like one of them has suffered more distortion during stitching. Do we know which one is closer to reality? (This single shot (I assume) again from about the same spot appears to me closer in shape to the newer version). --jjron (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the single-shot (assuming it is so) is more similar in appearance to the newer image, given more reason to delist this. JujutacularT · C 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would trust that Dschwen has corrected the distortion accurately in his image, but hard to be sure with subjects like this where there are no known vertical lines. What I would say is that if this image appears more like the single image, then it is more likely to be distorted, assuming that the single image has not been corrected for the upward tilt. What I don't understand is why Fcb's image doesn't replace the lead image, since it's far better. But it's arguable that there is justification for two similar images anyway IMO. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they may have been far enough back not to be overly affected by an upwards tilt anyway, but perhaps you could elaborate a bit. My inclination was that these things were pretty steep which made me think Fcb's was more realistic, and the shape of the blocks also looked a bit more 'natural', but I can't really say anything definite. The people are probably too small to really tell if they're squashed or stretched. I had a bit of look back at the article history a few days ago and I think the current lead image may have replaced Fcb's at some stage (which would reinforce what I said in the active nom about unilateral decisions being made on image replacement). --jjron (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delist. Both are quality images but Dschwen's is just slightly more detailed (although less sharp too). FWIW, I do prefer the lighting in this image, but as it's no longer used in any articles, we can't really keep it as an FP. As an aside, it's interesting to note that the placement of the people in the two photos makes the size of the structure seem very different - it's smaller looking in Fcb981's and larger in Dschwen's. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contingent on it remaining in Tourism in Mexico. I think it has weaker EV now as it's more of a value-add to that article, but it can't hurt to keep it in there, given it has better aesthetics than the newer FP. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep I think this image is better than the newer/Alt in several aspects, most prominently lighting. And I certainly think is better for illustrating Tourism in Mexico, in which I just replaced a lower quality image with this one. Please consider its EV in this light. --Elekhh (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist overall proportion not correct. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I meant to do this earlier. The image nominated above is definitely of higher quality and makes this one unnecessary. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it superseeded is an oversimplification IMO. Both are very good images but with different qualities, and while one might fit best one article another one can fit better another article. I believe that having several very good but different images of a subject would result in a higher collective EV than having the same image in all articles. --Elekhh (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're both images of the same structure from the same vantage point... the only differences is one's higher quality, less distracting foreground (people) but to some's views eyes less than favorable light, this one only argument I saw that might hold weight is lighting, to me that's not enough of a redeeming factor to make up for the others. So I feel superseded is a valid delist on it if the new one is promoted. — raeky(talk | edits) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was that depending on the article it illustrates (i.e. tourism) the presence of tourist can be positive.--Elekhh (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also created an image that I think demonstrates that something is not right with this image, there is a clear distortion making the tower taller then. File:Chitzen Itze.JPG appears to be a single shot from same area of the structure, and it's prospective is nearly identical to File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg, whereas Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg is taller, but again from nearly the same spot. Actually when I was zoomed in to the two, it appears as if File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg and Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg are taken closer to the same spot and File:Chitzen Itze.JPG is taken from a nearby spot from the way the ramps occlude some of the tiers near the top left of the structure, but that's definitely my opinion. I think the image shows that LIKELY the stitching of this file has caused unwanted distortion to the prospective. — raeky(talk | edits) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice graph. I did an aditional rough verification of the proportions: given that in the image the proportion between the projection of the left base x and right base y is ca. 1:1.63 and the article states that the lenght of the base is l=55.3m that means (l²=x²+y²) that the overall projection of the base (x+y) is ca.76m. Based again on the article the height is 26m (not including the temple) yet from the photograph the resulting height is ca.27m, which confirms your finding that the proportion is verticaly exagerated. --Elekhh (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your calcs here, but proportionally from your diagram if that taller one is 27m, that would make the other ones about 24-25m. --jjron (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what happens to a single photograph without perspective correction
Keep As original nominator. I personally see this image as being more aesthetic (lighting, sky, etc), sharper at full resolution, and otherwise not inferior to the new nomination. I would argue that this image is more proportional than the single image, because without the use of a Perspective correction lens, photographs taken without the camera pointed level at the horizon exhibit substantial perspective error. In the stitching process, I defined the horizon manually, and therefor the software rendered a theoretically more accurate perspective. for example this image obviously is exhibiting distortions and is a single shot. Whereas the farther away the image is taken from and the closer the camera is aligned with the horizon, the more accurate the perspective (ie. this). Now I'm not saying the perspective of my shot is perfect, but people should think before drawing beautiful profile comparisons, and spewing mis-information from a position of ignorance. The only way to do a mathematical calculation of height from a photograph is to know the angle of the sensor plane in relation to the true vertical (ϴ), the horizontal distance from the base of the monument to the nodal point of the lens (x), the height of the nodal point of the lens (y), and the distance to either 1) the topmost point of the tower (hypotenuse), or 2) to the point directly underneath the topmost point of the tower at the height of the nodal point of the lens; at which point a trigonometric evaluation would be possible. Have a nice day, may your ignorance carry you far. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and actually I forgot, the focal length of the lens must also be known, or alternately an object of known size at a know distance must be in the photo to determine focal length and to measure real-world angles in comparison to the image. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, ignoring that you're probably dangerously close to violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, you're stating you believe your image is a more correct visual representation of the actual structure then the other two photographs? And exactly how much tilt you think these photographs represent, because to me they appear to be shot near horizontal to the horizon with a wide angle lens. I've got a fairly extensive background in visual arts and photography and my opinion is that your composite image is MOST LIKELY unnaturally distorting the structure. — raeky(talk | edits) 22:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wider the angle of view (wide-angle lens) of a photograph the more pronounced the effects of camera tilt become. This is due simply to a larger portion of the subject being visible, at a constant distance from subject and tilt angle. It's prohibitively difficult for us to determine mathematically which images are more accurate, so you are entitled to your opinion. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fcb981, thanks for your participation in the discussion. A friendlier tone would indeed be even more welcomed. I obviously did not account for perspective or optical distortions, for several reasons you just mentioned (a) not enough information about exact position of the camera available, (b) perspective correction is allowed at FPC, (c) minimising perspective distortion is desirable in order to provide a good illustration of the subject, and I thought I made it clear by using the word "projection". What I was saying was that the representation of the subject in this image creates the impression that it would be taller than it actually is (based on the dimensions provided in the article), but I am open (I withdrawn my delist in order to highlight this) for a discussion of the merits of any particular perspective. --Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the unfriendly tone, i happened to log-on to see that an image of mine was being delisted, several days after the beginning of the nomination, and based on what I view to be poor rational. It's very open-minded of you to retract your delist vote and I thank you for that open-mindedness. My intent in the original comment was to walk the fine line of remaining civil, and strongly voicing my annoyance with how (it seems) a baseless conjecture as to 'distorted perspective' was so readily taken up by many voters as a glaring fault. If people feel that this image should be delisted based on its lower final resolution, or other true differences, thats fine; what bothers me, is that I think people are carelessly assuming a newer and larger image is better, even though I don't see any other merits to it. In fact, this image being sharper at full size, I would argue, negates much of the benefit of more resolution. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason it's being delisted is because Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg has superseded it. It was not used in the article space anymore because better images was found. The issue of the prospective came up separately after we got to looking at it compared to other images of the subject, which I find it hard to believe that all the other images are incorrect and yours is the most accurate. Your image to the naked eye looks taller or stretched when you look at other pictures of the subject. That right there should tell you something is wrong. — raeky(talk | edits) 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you didn't read the entire above discussion, or perhaps you're being purposely obtuse. The word "supersede", in this case, is surely a matter of opinion. I'm not the only one with doubts as to whether the new image actually supersedes anything. To so callously assert that this image was superseded ignores the entire discussion thread to which you are replying, and makes me doubt your objectivity. It's also an oblivious overstatement to say "all the other images are incorrect and yours is the most accurate", when "all other images" refers to two images chosen specifically because they were so similar. In addition, my assertion that this image is "most accurate", was academic to the discussion, and qualified with the statement "now I'm not saying the perspective of my image is perfect". My point was that there is reason to suspect the "exaggerated vertical perspective" of this image, may in fact be accurate, and therefor not constitute a flaw. Here is where I must editorialize somewhat; your comments, Raeky, come off as passive-aggressive, and myopic. They conveniently ignored everything I said in my initial comment. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supersede in this sense here at FPC we generally don't allow more then one image of the same subject to be a FP at once. Since we prompted, imho a superior version of this structure (bigger, probably better prospective, etc..) that would mean out of practice this one would be delisted. I don't see how people walking around slightly closer to the camera makes this image better suited for some articles then the other which also has people milling around in it too. Likewise I don't think this is a good fit for Tourism imho. — raeky(talk | edits) 06:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no unequivocal evidence available that this image would be less accurate representation of the subject, and per my previous arguments regarding EV. --Elekhh (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist To be replaced by Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg --Iankap99 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom has been open 16 days. 6D, 5K with current trend to change from D to K. No consensus to delist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed from its article as misidentified, and is not currently in any article. While a gorgeous image, we need to get it into somewhere if it's to remain an FP
Comment Found the culprit - it is being used at Black Kite, it was just under the wrong filename - I just fixed it. I've tagged the local page for the wrong filename for speedy deletion. JujutacularT · C 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - no longer necessary =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This only shows the top half (or less) of the animal, and has already been removed from articles about bears, so its EV might not be as high as previously thought. If you're wondering about the background: yes, some bits have been cloned in.
Delist half the bear is obscured... — raeky(talk | edits) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was judged to be FP at one time and the only thing that has changed is the number of articles it is in. I love the eye-catching colors here, so I went in search of an EV-based justification. It is currently being used on Denali National Park and Preserve, List of mammals of Alaska and List of mammals of Canada and is used on wide variety of other-language Wikipedias. It’s a fine picture. I see no need to see this one expunged from the FP-thumb world. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the argument is not to stop using it, but to stop *featuring* it. And what other Wikipedias do is of no particular consequence. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Yeah, it's pretty, and yeah, "it's a fine picture", but it has minimal EV. It reminds me of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion; a lovely concept shot, and would look great in a brochure for the park, but it's not really demonstrating much here. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues with this, as I see it. First and foremost is the greyscale- there is no reason for this to be greyscale. There has been significant opposition to noms which are greyscale for no reason (for instance, this is a recent example where a colour image was acquired). Obviously, greyscale is appropriate for historical images, or shots from certain pieces of equipment, but I do not see why it is appropriate here. Secondly, this is pretty low resolution, (vertically, it is 1000px exactly, and horizontally, even less). This does not mean it's against our guidelines, but I do think it means that it needs a real "umph" that this doesn't have. FP-quality portraits and high quality, OTRS'd images are not as unusual as they once were- I'm fairly certain that this would not pass today. As such, I don't see why it should remain a featured picture.
Oppose Going to have to oppose, first my background in photography tells me this is an extremely well executed portrait. The black & white, although not standard makes it pop more. I'm also partial to black & white when done right, and here I feel it's done right. Yes it's unfortunately right at the cusp of our minimum requirements, and thats unfortunate, but I'm ok with it. And finally, this is GIBBS! we can't delist GIBBS! I'm sure he has a rule # for that. — raekyT 02:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per raeky. IMO, the picture still fulfills the requirements for FP-status: It is “eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” Very eye-catching. Greg L (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I considered nominating for this a while ago, but changed my mind more or less per Raeky. I think this is one of the better portraits we have in our gallery of highly notable celebrity figures. It is on par with our George Clooney image which was recently passed. I don't see much utility for colour in it: the aforementioned highway image was not nearly as dramatic in BW, and colour may well distract from Harmon himself. Cowtowner (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I think I really misjudged this. I can see where people are coming from here. Still not wild about the black and white, but yeah, I'm starting to agree. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image quality is fine, but there is simply no context; the EV is not in any way clear. For this reason, it is not to appear on the main page. The meeting is not mentioned in any of the three articles- the image isn't really adding much, and the articles wouldn't be losing much if it was removed- it pretty clearly fails FPC#5, to my eyes. I am reminded of this image, which was opposed because of EV concerns. As an aside, with only three supporters not including the nominator, the nom would not be considered to have a consensus to promote today.
Delist questionable EV, only passed with 3 votes, which is less then current standards. — raekyT 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I'm not for applying current standards to previous promotions (e.g., 'wouldn't have enough votes today'), but indeed dubious EV, and frankly pretty poor composition - if a Wikipedian photographed and nominated this with contemporary notable figures it wouldn't stand a chance (additionally it seems Archibald Butt was only identified through some slightly questionable OR). However, I don't believe the editor/nominator has been notified? --jjron (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Photograph restorer now notified. Maedin\talk 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Millions of people visit Wikipedia each day. It's always struck me as vaguely ridiculous that a picture can get promoted to Featured by three or four of those people and demoted again by another two or three. Do whatever you feel is in the best interest of the project, guys. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 60MP of four notable figures, identified in the LoC original, legitimately promoted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute any of those points, but where's the EV? J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official meeting of the gentlemen shown emphasises their respective roles and standing in society. It was among Bryce's duties to attend and mediate at official Presidential occasions that were relevant to Britain. It shows Baden-Powell's reputation and that even in its early days, the importance of the Scouting movement was being duly noted at the highest levels of public life and administration. It also may be one of the last photographs of Butt (presidential aide, hence appropriate for the photo), who boarded the Titanic in 1912, with fatal consequences. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All fairly interesting, yes, but the meeting isn't mentioned in any of the articles, and it doesn't really serve to illustrate anything in any of the articles. They would hardly be worse off without it, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not, I didn't say there was. All I was saying was that it was not clear why the meeting warranted illustration, and therefore it wasn't clear what the image was intending to illustrate, or what meant it had the kind of EV necessary for a FP. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really impressive resolution, and I find it worthy just as portraits of the men and of official duties bringing them into circulation. (Also a great size reference for Taft.) Maedin\talk 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2010 at 21:10:32 (UTC)
delist: King of Bhutan, crowned 2008replacement edit: Flaw around hair removed.
Reason
Towards the end of the original nomination in 2008, an edit was made that fixed a flaw in this image. The edit was minor, ignored, and this one promoted instead. Just procedurally, it would be nice to transfer the star to a version that is (however slightly) better.
Delist and replace — Maedin\talk 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've literally just spent a minute staring at the two pictures side by side - what have you actually changed?! -- bydand•talk 01:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace, do we really need to go through this procedure? It seems to me that we could simply upload over the original and post a nomination for minor changes like this. Cowtowner (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of these delist nominations seem pointless. A tiny part of the image is changed and we need a concencus on it? Seems frivolous. -- bydand•talk 01:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my edit, the edit was done two years ago by Diego pmc during the original nomination. There is a halo/artefact left over from sharpening at the back of the king's head, where it meets the wall. The edit has removed that. The reason I didn't want to upload over the top myself is that the fix may have introduced issues that I didn't spot and/or the fix may be poorly done. I figured if the edit was such A Good Thing, then MER-C would have promoted it at the time, but he didn't. But okay, this is fine, too. At least more eyes have been on it than just mine, so thanks. Maedin\talk 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delist and delist. If this can of worms is opened, then just delist the picture. 0.8MP is a ridiculously small size. Good portrait? yes. Useful/valuable? Yes. But not top of the line, not featureworthy. --Dschwen 13:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now, my eyesight isn't the best, but I just can't see the difference. What am I looking at here? J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have exactly the same issue as J Milburn, I still can't see anything 12 hours later. Maybe my untrained eyes are failing me, but really.. I replaced the image with the replacement just to avoid the ridiculousness of it, yet it was reverted. I'm quite lost, and also find it sad that Wikipedia has come to the stage of needing a concencus on this. -- bydand•talk 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: There is an orange band of "light" following the back of the skull (above left of the king's ear). Side by side with the edit, you can see that it's been replaced with black/removed. Yes, the edit is minor. Regardless, I don't see why a D&R should cause a fuss. Surely if it bothers, it can be ignored? Maedin\talk 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am simply a bit bewildered. I see this nomination section as a place where delistings & changes etc. which people may oppose to are added. Can I ask, why would anyone oppose this? Yet we must go through this procedure? -- bydand•talk 02:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sorry, it's gonna have to be neutral from me, as I just can't see the difference. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the difference even in thumbnail. Have you not downloaded and looked in an image editing programme (as our FPC header recommends)? Maedin\talk 10:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of earlier close
Uploaded the supposed edit over the original to avoid this pointless discussion. -- bydand•talk 01:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted nomination because Bydand's solution did not stick (see file history). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 20:10:03 (UTC)
A satellite composite image of North America.
Reason
Compared to our images of other continent and land masses, this one doesn't meet the resolution requirements by a fairly long shot. While I think it is encyclopedic, we need to produce a new image from the NASA source; I'm afraid I don't really know how to do that.
Comment It might be worth suspending this until we have a replacement candidate. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whyso? If the image is not good enough, it's not good enough. We don't feature substandard images until something better comes along. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll comment, seeing as I'm the original nominator. Simply because this is the best satellite image of North America we have. It meets all criteria, including in resolution, while granted that it isn't as high as the other continent images. Keep it until NASA release a higher resolution version. It would feel awkward for all the other continents to be featured and this one not to. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response; but, NASA has released a larger image (the Blue Marble) of the whole planet from which we have created derivative works including the images of the 4 other continents shown here (don't worry about awkwardness, Europe and Asia are still MIA). So while this is the best we have (which, not to flog a dead horse, isn't a rationale for featuring an image), it's not the best we can have or should have. Cowtowner (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it still meets the criteria. I would happily !vote to delist and replace it if a suitable replacement candidate was suggested. --Avenue (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Milburn asked above, why should we keep an image that is so far below the other criteria? Cowtowner (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the relevant change in our criteria since December 2009 (when it passed). Criterion 2 (on resolution) looks identical to me, except for the addition of an exemption for animations and video (which doesn't apply here). --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct there has been no change in our criteria, but there has obviously been a change in our standards for this type of image. Just as there is a very high standard for bugs and birds, there is a high standard for continental satellite images as evidenced by this one's contemporaries. Keeping it degrades the project as it is technically inferior. Cowtowner (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the other continents' images have arrived since this was last !voted on, but the other two were promoted earlier, with one dating from 2006. So it's not that clear to me that our standards have suddenly changed. If the North America image was from a 2005 nom (not late 2009), that would be different. Yes, this image is inferior to the others, and I'd be happy to see a better version. But I think delisting should be a last resort, not the first. If you could tell me that you have tried other approaches to get a replacement made, without any luck, that would also be different. But this just seems too premature. --Avenue (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the timeline, I'd say that the North American promotion was out of line with the policy at the time. I don't think the fact that it was promoted in 2009 should give it immunity from deletion. I tried replacing the image myself, but was unable to get very far. I nomed it for deletion here in hopes that someone might have better luck at saving it themselves. Cowtowner (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's becoming clear that this has no legs without a replacement candidate, which given that the method for obtaining such an image has been described, is really not such a big hurdle - possibly less than the collective effort spent on this nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that rationale is bogus, can we suspend this until someone with the know-how changes the projection on the Blue Marble image and makes a replacement? Cowtowner (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I experimented with this a bit and got up to around 10MP, but I'd like to do a bit more. BTW, the original blue marble texture is only 200MP, so how you can have Antarctica at 41MP and South America at 72MP, I don't know. Sounds like a lot of artificial upsampling to me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The strange sizes are most likely the result of changes in projection which may stretch or compress various parts of an image to allow for a more accurate display of the continents. Therefore, some parts are larger than they may have been in the original. This is simply the nature of projecting large spherical sections onto a 2D plane. Looking at the images, I see no evidence that they were upsampled -- they are razor sharp. Cowtowner (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken. The 233MP image is not the largest available. NASA gives a large copy here, which comes to over 900MP once the two halves are combined. Cowtowner (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image, while striking, is used only in Barack Obama economic policy, where its EV is not clear. Yes, a portrait has clear EV in the article on the subject, but it was decided a while ago by the editors of the article that this image did not have a place there, and the official portrait now leads. This was taken during a speech that is related to the subject matter of the article in which it is used, but that does not mean that the image automatically has EV- all this seems to be adding to the article is decoration, and decoration is not enough to justify a picture being featured.
Look at it like this- if the coverage of Obama's economic policy was in main biography, this image would be a decorative image adding little there, as it would clearly be redundant to the lead image. In this case, it isn't- this is a decorative image adding little which is used in a different article. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a fantastic portrait, high quality like few others, interesting lighting and very appealing color scheme. It would be sad to see this go. --Dschwen 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great portrait, yes, but that doesn't mean it automatically has EV. Discussion on the Barack Obama talk page has decided this is not the best image to show him- what does it add to the article on his economic policy? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Doesn't demonstrate a policy, as it's a portrait... If it's not a policy it can't be used in a policy article... But maybe I'm thinking a little too laterally... gazhiley.co.uk 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's got to be a better picture of Obama out there, the glare is bad and he looks angry in this one. --I'ḏ♥One 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a bad portrait... simply bad. Probably only promoted because of who he is without regard to image quality. — raekyt 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this lighting is very eye-catching and rare. Dramatic. I see no need to undo what was done. Greg L (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 15:37:36 (UTC)
Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)
Reason
No longer used in Red Panda (a good article), it is only used a gallery; the value of this picture is currently very low. It only just meets our resolution requirements.
I notified the nominator (who has not edited in years). From what I can see, the creator was never active on the English Wikipedia. There's an account on Commons that has not edited in nearly four years. Feel free to notify if you feel the need, though I note that our specific instructions do not require it, so certainly don't feel free to take "remedial action". J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is to give them reasonable notice, not slip it past them by whatever doesn't quite violate the rules. Honest courtesy is not a flaw, Milburn, nor is putting in a genuine effort. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't talk to me about "courtesy". You've shown you'll do everything in your power to wikilawyer your way into being a dick, so I'm just anticipating that. You could just, y'know, vote delist and move on. It wouldn't pass today, no matter what the usage, and everyone bloody knows it. Why are people so scared of delists? If the uploader cared even remotely about the English Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd have an account here. Would we be contacting military personnel if we were going to delist a US-Mil picture? No, of course not. There's also the slightly odd fact that people get so het-up about notifying creators when delisting, yet creators are frequently not notified when it's actually listed- it's entirely possible the first they hear about it is that it's getting delisted. In any case, this is off-topic. Can we try and get one freaking delist nomination with a satisfying consensus? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying we need a decent consensus to stop people you moaning. I am an extremely consistent person, and I deeply resent your "misguided" bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theres not a way to fit it into the Red Panada article? Its a really good picture Spongie555 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed from the article by the editors of the article, and the article itself is currently of a high quality; it's not our place to start forcing it into articles. Further, unless it was the lead image, so far as I can see, it will always be redundant to the lead image, giving it rather questionable EV. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a number of redundant images, all of them of lower image quality than the current FP. The only one that comes close in quality is , but it has a few blown highlights in unfortunate places. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There probably are redundant images, but they shouldn't be FPs either. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how your comment is relevant to the nomination. What I was saying is that there are many that would probably flop over in deference because they're mediochre in image quality, and don't add EV beyond what the lede image achieves, so I wouldn't anticipate great difficulty in finding the FP a place in the article. I think it's worth having one really decent image in the article, and this is the one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is that, even if we "flop over" one redundant image to add this redundant image, that doesn't suddenly mean that this image has EV. This one has been replaced by the editors of the article, and the article is currently of fairly good quality; we should be very careful about just trying to slip in pictures we like... J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same goes for delisting images that we don't like ("we" in inverted commas, probably). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, really, this is just getting silly. Cowtowner (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone put it back in the Red Panda article. Spongie555 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what EV does it have there? It's just another picture of a Red Panda. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be the topic of the article, don't you think? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that doesn't mean that any picture that happens to show a Red Panda has FP-level EV, does it? J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image was unanimously supported by 19 editors for reasons including EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... It may well have had EV then. Doesn't mean that it does now. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it is, so far as I can see, just another picture of the subject, entirely redundant to the lead image. The article would not be severely lacking without it- it's offering little in terms of reader understanding. EV is not, and can not be, about the image independent of its usage. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given how blurry the lead image is, it would easily be just as useful if downsampled twofold in each dimension. Furthermore, the white background removes any recognisable contour around the ears. The only reason to have any sympathy with the lede image is that the animal is munching bamboo - useful information, but that's where its qualities cease. I can't see the ear tufts, and I don't get the fine detail of the fur, which is hugely relevant to the topic because it's one of the main reasons they're vanishing - poaching for fur. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not happy with the lead image, that's fair enough, but that doesn't suddenly mean this one has EV. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read my previous comment. It addresses your question. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask a question. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too small, seems to be a common enough snail that a new image meeting current standards could be nominated, this image and this image are examples of images used in the species' article that do meet the standard for example.
Delist — I'ḏ♥One 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, absolutely. This wouldn't have a chance of passing today, and is far, far below current standards. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no need to exaggerate like you just did - this is of a perfectly fine technical standard. It was 1024 pixels wide when promoted to FP on Wikipedia and VI on Commons (defeating this alternate candidate as recently as January 2009), and was cropped, apparently on an initiative of boldness that is not backed by any consensus, by one editor after the fact, and uploaded over the top. We could just revert it and that would be the end of the size argument. As for any other argument, this is encyclopaedic in composition, well exposed and noise-free. Any notion that this is "far, far below current standards" is purely imaginary. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a Keep vote then? I still don't think this would pass today (people would insist it be poster size, might be against the sterile, unnatural background, would insist it be used on the species (which it's not) and not just Snails in general, would probably just nominate a picture of the shell taken from 5 different angles) and that a better picture is possible, but I suppose at least get it back over the minimum and I'll consider withdrawing. --I'ḏ♥One 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The EV's not even that massive. I'm really not being blown away to the extent I would have to be to support an image that small. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist agree with the above. Foldedwater (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: I don't think the EV and age are sufficiently mitigating the shortcomings. Maedin\talk 10:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 10:36:28 (UTC)
Output from a (linearised) shallow water equation model of water in a bathtub. The water experiences 5 splashes which generate surface gravity waves that propagate away from the splash locations and reflect off of the bathtub walls
Reason
Pretty, but no real EV since there is no detail about the equation this models or the linearization made (there are a number of possibilities).
"Noodle snacks", I think you should give your arguments, not just your bottom-line verdict. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes this kind of technical information is preserved in an old version of the caption - did you check for this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author (User:DanCopsey1) did not provide the code used to generate this image. —Ruud 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly obvious that it refers to this form: [9] since DanCopsey was the only contributor to the article, and also the uploader of the image. That's him I think: [10] His email address is easy to find if you want to contact him for more details. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's overillustrated, and yet still this hasn't found a home there. I think that says something. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like anybody actually tried, I think Adam just made the remark that it could be found a home. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but it's small, not particularly EV-heavy and the article already has two FPs which illustrate the subject far better. Seems like a fairly clear delist to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 03:00:48 (UTC)
Deepwater spill May 24, 2010Current image
Reason
This is featured, but it's no longer used on the article, it seems to have been replaced with the one below it, we might as well just replace it. I actually prefer the small excerpt map, it adds educational value by giving the viewer more visual info about the location.
Replace — I'ḏ♥One 03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The source of the (source of the) inset map is unclear, so the copyright status of this combined image is too. (The fact that its uploader confused "topographical" and "topological" doesn't fill me with confidence, and nor do the hand icons in various places around the map, but maybe that's unfair.) --Avenue (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I contacted the uploader of the map on Commons, so we wait... --I'ḏ♥One 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, clearly, as it is not in use. I am not wild about the replacement, and I suspect that others are not, hence the lack of votes. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the map insert is just ugly. --Ephemeronium (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point- we really can't keep it, as it is not in use. If the original is not in use, and the new version is not suitable, then delisting is the only option. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the added education value? You don't think it looks good on the article? --I'ḏ♥One 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh boy, a replace vote, a delist vote, a copyright query and a keep - Looks like it might get saved by impasse. --I'ḏ♥One 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one with any respect for FPs generally would keep the original, as it is not in use in the article space. That's simply not an option at this time. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the map insert really needed? We don't have them on other satellite images. And in the article, its purpose of a lead image is not to give an exact indication of context, and there's another map down the page doing just that. Hence it becomes a question of which deserves inclusion in the article. --Ephemeronium (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that's the main issue remaining. Is this the right venue for it, though? My understanding is that FPC generally defers to the decisions made by editors of the article in question. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly not the venue for that discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be suspended until the commons editor has a chance to comment. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they have a notice on their talk page saying they've left in a huff, their last edit in 2009 was to delete notices about the sourcing of similar maps, and their previous edit was in 2007, I don't think we should hold our breath. --Avenue (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be better with a zoom effect, where the photograph is not partly obscured by the map (i.e. map placed outside photograph) - this is a bit closer to what I'm thinking of. I think a placement of the overview map above or below the photograph would make most sense given the dimensions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough delist votes. I plan to raise this issue on FPC:Talk since the current FP is unused. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was not in use at the start of the nomination, it is not in use now. The image unambiguously and uncontroversially fails our criteria. It should be delisted, whether enough people said the magic word or not. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R per nom. SpencerT♦C 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really wild about it, the colours don't look right. D/R if you're convinced it's better... J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Careful not to trust your intuition if you weren't there at the time though - sometimes it's obvious when colours are wrong, but sometimes you can't know for sure. The colours are correct though, they haven't been enhanced. It was taken at blue hour, the foreground and the building itself is lit up with sodium lights and with white floodlights from the outside. That's why it has such a strange combination of colours, but that's exactly how it was. Here's proof. All Lightroom sliders set to their default locations, white balance set 'as shot'. Sorry, I know you didn't outright say that the colours had been falsified, but it bugs me when people assume that it 'doesn't look right' when it clearly is. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has nobody bothered to examine the proposed replacement in any detail? There is some serious posterisation in the sky that isn't present in the original. Sloppy editing. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. WithdrawingNergaal (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kept Withdrawn. —Maedin\talk 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how (rough count) 7-2 is a poor consensus. Also, this nomination is currently not valid (original nominator has not been notified). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the image quality is pretty consistent with photography in dim, confined locations. Also, the only people blurred are in the absolute foreground, not on the platform (and this doesn't really detract from any understanding or appreciation of the subject IMO since they don't obscure anything important). Which kinda leaves no actual valid reason remaining for the delist. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of subject which is difficult to illustrate in a very compelling way- I'm not going to use the argument occasionally seen that there could not be a FP of the subject, but it would need a kind of "umph" that this one just doesn't seem to. I personally find the forground blurry people rather distracting. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is by no means a bad picture. I just don't think I would support it if it was nominated today. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the motion-blurred people in the foreground to be suggesting the movement of people coming and going from the platform. It's not necessary to illustrate the subject but I don't personally feel they detract. But you're welcome to see things your way. :-) Oh, but I agree with you that it's a difficult subject to illustrate in a compelling way. Sometimes I don't mind giving images leeway on that, and sometimes I just have to accept that nothing short of an amazing photo will do the subject justice. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I supported this in its original nomination, and I still do. The strong EV makes up for the blur. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good EV. I don't like the practice of nominating images to be delisted after seeing them on the main page --Muhammad(talk) 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diliff and my comments in original nom. I like the motion blur. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this picture... The motion almost serves to convey the bustling nature of the environment on the underground... gazhiley.co.uk 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my original vote. -- mcshadyplTC 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you never did actually elaborate on what gave it 'no EV' in your original vote. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 08:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(current FP) Aftermath of the Wounded Knee Massacre, 17 January 1891.(proposed replacement) Reduces glare on the snow, minimizes dark vertical band at far right, and improves contrast slightly on the remains.
Reason
Nominating for delisting and replacement with a new final edit. Good news regarding this image: after the Library of Congress confirmed the discovery of human remains in the foreground (from last year's restoration) the Montréal Museum of Fine Art incorporated the update into official program notes for an exhibit about historic photography.
See caption notes for the proposed replacement. Durova412 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read those, and I can identify no tangible improvement from one version to the next. I don't get any more detail on the bodies, the dark vertical band is spurious, and frankly, the snow is not the subject of the picture. The main impression I'm left with is that your proposed replacement has a grey cast, and the grain in the sky has been brought out = made worse. My personal opinion is that this is a lost cause - dark bodies on dark background, and if you think about it for a moment, this circumstance has actually become part of the history of the picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this restoration rediscovered those bodies: the Library of Congress staff hadn't been aware there were human remains in the photograph. This restoration caused them to update their records, and afterward the find was incorporated into the official program notes for an exhibit of historic photography at the Montréal Museum of Fine Art. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-02-16/News and notes and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-07/News and notes. Durova412 15:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace — GerardM (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. A simple procedural change. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Agreed, if it's settled in the article this way up. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. cygnis insignis 11:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC) [strike part, per creator request]] 13:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it to a couple of voters at the last nomination. cygnis insignis 11:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who did the revision, I'd mention that I'm hesitant to have it considered FP: The paper at the top is cloned in, because the original restoration is cropped tightly there, to the point of being too tightly cropped when rotated. However, it would be several hours' work to paste the upload of the half-done original restoration onto the original scan, and then try to blend it together. This is said in the file description, which I presume has not been read. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - upside-down images do not qualify for FP status; agree with Cuerden about the right-side up version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace This is part of a featured set, and the EV of the set would be significantly diminished without this; so I think a piece of minor cloning is acceptable. Time3000 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rotate, which I guess in technical terms means Delist and replace --Elekhh (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:Raven Manet E2 corrected.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until corrected: There is a flaw in the upper right, where the text orientation was changed by 180 degrees compared to the original. Please fix or explain, thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current FP Bluebottle fly (Calliphora vomitoria)Original that did not get consensusProposed replacement
Reason
The crop was disfavoured by the photographer, but got promoted because !voters found the white patch in the background distracting. In the nominated version, the white patch, which is not, to my knowledge, relevant to the encyclopaedic value of the picture, has been removed, while the original framing has been restored.
weak support Delist, oppose replace and replace. The framing is indeed not ideal but the white patch is even less desirable. The replacement looks fine to me. Abisharan (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace The new version is more aesthetically pleasing, and draws more attention to the fly, rather than the plant. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace as per Mahahahaneapneap (great name btw - presumably Monty Python inspired?) Gazhiley (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per the crop is ugly. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per above. --Avenue (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced File:Calliphora vomitoria edit.jpgMaedin\talk 22:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to take two photographs of the Eastern Rosella, one male and one female. They have consistent lighting, backgrounds and so on. Being taken at nearly the same time I'm of sure the sex of each animal. I feel that either of these individually is superior to File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis.jpg. The backgrounds are less distracting and there is more visible detail. A male/female pair in the taxobox would also have greater EV in my view. I wish to replace the first image with the other two, placing the new ones in the taxobox.
To be delisted (mistakenly received FP star after consensus was to replace, but replacement image was deleted at commons)To be delisted (mistakenly received FP star after consensus was to replace, but replacement image was deleted at commons)Replacement Two major smudges are gone, it's sRGB converted and reasonably despeckled. I haven't completely removed all specks because it's unclear to me whether there would be sparks in the air in this environment; you'll also notice that the top left corner is still affected by soft blur due to what I believe to be hot air or steam entering from the LHS.
Reason
This is a somewhat procedural nomination. Bear with me. We had a previous delist discussion in 2007 where it was decided to replace the FP with a downsampled, edited version. However, in accordance with Commons policies (downsampled versions get the quick axe), this version was subsequently deleted at Commons. The deleting admin (User:Majorly) who is active on Wikipedia thought nothing of the fact that we'd promoted the image to FP status (you *may* groan or grumble at this point if you feel so inclined). I'll skip some of the other stuff that happened in the ensuing confusion, and skip to the fact that I'm here nominating a new restored version of the original image. Details in caption.
Delist and replace. Amphy (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Still think we need a faster way to deal with obvious D & R requests like this by the way. Cat-five - talk 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably one of the most important images ever created for our understanding of the universe. The 7-year image is more detailed, over the 5 year image, although they look virtually identical to the naked eye. We should keep the FP on the most recent of these images, it's POSSIBLE they'll release another study later, but this project is nearing the end of it's life cycle.
Delist & replace as nominator --— raeky(talk | edits) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R, per nom. A longer study means a better more detailed image in this case. Very important in understanding the Big Bang Theory. I've added in the caption that these variations in temperature are extremely tiny - which is the main reason for the theory. JujutacularT · C 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, as above. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, more updated. SpencerT♦C 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is used in a couple templates: I'll start switching it over, since it takes a bit to refresh all the usages, and there's presumably not more than a handful of cases where the old version would be desirable. Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Everything that should be switched over now is; this may be closed at will. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:WMAP 2010.png --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 10:13:35 (UTC)
To be delisted Armillaria sp MarriottReplacement Armillaria sp Marriott
Reason
This is a minor delist & replace - following complaints about the background, an edited version was presented and promoted on Commons. Somehow, the en assessment result got stuck on that same version, which is wrong because we promoted the unedited version here. Given that one editor here also complained about the background, I think the best long-term solution is for us to feature the same version without the background distraction. Also note that one article already uses the cleaned-up version.
D&R. OK, so I complained about that white thing in the b/g without actually registering a !vote, so I guess I'll prefer the version that's been cleaned up. Not over-manipulation for mine. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - The element removed was distracting, completely out of focus, and not relevant tot he image's subject. What is it, anyway? A fence post? Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to original nom. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 11:57:12 (UTC)
Current FP - Buster Keaton was an American comic actor.Suggested replacement- Scratches/dust removed.
Reason
The original was a little dirty/scratched- we've come to expect better at FPC. The new version, given some restoration work by Fallschirmjäger, is a little cleaner and much more worthy of the FP star.
English: Animated scheme of a four stroke internal combustion engine, Otto principle: #Suction stroke - Air and vaporised fuel are drawn in. #Compression stroke - Fuel vapor and air are compressed and ignited. #Power stroke - Fuel combusts and piston is pushed downwards. #Exhaust stroke - Exhaust is driven out.
Reason
Suggested replacement, a much larger version is also available.A superior version of this animation is now available.
Presumably because it would disadvantage those with a slow connection, as with animated gifs, the full size file may have to be loaded before it can be viewed in the article. On a 56k connection, well, you work it out! :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - Remembering that the full-size version gets the star; the one seen here gets {{FPlowres}} Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-aliased gifs should not have transparent backgrounds. The new graphic looks bad on top of any color - On white, the edges are aliased; on black the text is unreadable. The new gif should be on a solid background so that the edges can be properly aliased. Alternately, it should be converted into an animated PNG. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just notified the nominator (see this), so let's hold this open until he has the chance to comment. If anyone knows some German, feel free to contact the creator UtzOnBike. He actually commented on the original nomination as an IP user, so he might want to comment here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice The original nomination laid out a few points that were incorrect, and the newer animation does address the matter of the flow of fuel with the use of arrows, however both images still suffer from a factual inaccuracy in that they compress to the point of infinity, which in real life would not happen. The fact the newer image retained this incorrect element is regrettable, and it for this reason that I have chosen to oppose the delisting of the current version. The first time around this matter was brought up but the image passed since it the technicality was already present in animation, but the newer version was uploaded less than a month ago and should have addressed this issue during the creation phase. I am open to supporting the new version, but if we are going to have a new FP on the matter then we owe it to both ourselves and to wikipedia to get the animation details right. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If both animations are inaccurate, we should feature neither of them. J Milburn (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy for me to correct this, what sort of volume should be left at maximum compression? - ZephyrisTalk 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be brutally honest, I do not know, but if you were to ask someone active in an automobile related project they could probably tell you you much space should be left at the top of the piston. @Zephyris: true, neither should be FP, but last time around the voting parties managed to produce 66% support for the image, which is why it got a star. We added a notice about the inaccuracy of the image to the POTD template as I recall, but since someone has gone through the trouble of making a new one I want to make sure we correct past mistakes so the newer version will be correct in all respects. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compression ratio says 1:10 is a typical compression ratio so I can redesign this animation to take that into account... It will take a long time to re-render though so don't hold your breath! - ZephyrisTalk 13:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The animation has been corrected for a compression ratio of 1:10. - ZephyrisTalk 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D.gif —Maedin\talk 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, it's clearly and obviously wrong: This is the original image. Note its primary colour is yellow. The paper is very nearly white, and these images are always placed upon a white surface, which can be seen, and is, indeed, white. Those two circumstances do not allow for radical recolouring. However, the restoration has radically recoloured it, changing the yellow to blue. I don't see how that can possibly be justified.
Comment Um, forgive me for being naive, but why exactly is this a problem? Changing the color balance in Photoshop isn't really radically recoloring. Yellow and blue are opposites in color balance. Also, explain to my why this "radical" restoration detracts from the image, degrades its quality, or makes it an unsuitable illustration of the subject?--AutoGyro (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply inaccurate: Simpson illustrations tend to use a fair amount of yellow; when that yellow gets replaced with blue, they are no longer what the artist intended. To give a real-life example, it's like having a picture of the Sahara desert with blue sand. The colour balance has no resemblance to reality. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the EV of that image is not because that it's a Simpson illustration, but because a depiction of a specific event, and a rather good one at that. If the argument was that the image was used to show specifically how these types of illustrations are made, then I would understand. --AutoGyro (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly delist or deny images for that sort of flaw. FPs are the best of the best, not simply "good enough". Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace That the the illustration doesn't show the proper colours is of course a problem. It is misleading, and I would even call it original research. I think the Sahara example illustrates this clearly. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement added - Suggest Delist and replace. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace now that an alternative is present, I can support this. --AutoGyro (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, new version seems more accurate. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stick with my delist vote, and may support a replace but I feel that the replacement needs cropping tighter, there is really no need for the massive amount of white border. The left, right and top sides can be cropped without losing any of the text from the bottom. JFitch(talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may look good in thumbnail, but, to me, I always think it looks a bit unbalanced at any higher resolution. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At full res the border is even more distracting. It's not unbalanced as the crop would be even still leaving it centre of the canvas horizontally. JFitch(talk) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "unbalanced", since it was, after all, printed with a border. But I'll hazard a guess as I'm about to leave for 2 days. The image's borders, like most Victorian images aren't perfectly straight. While this one is nearer true than most, the top border noticeably tilts upwards, for instance. Adam Cuerden(talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:William Simpson - Charge of the light cavalry brigade, 25th Oct. 1854, under Major General the Earl of Cardigan.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, clearly, no opinion on replace at this time. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace: Clearly, because it's the proposed replacement that's being used, and text outside of the graphic is typical. I would suggest that voting delist and not replace at this stage is counter-productive, because it just means no conclusion is reached, instead of succeeding in the primary goal, to swap the star to the new one. Opinion on delisting alone can be made at any other time. Maedin\talk 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my primary goal to "swap the star to the new one"- we shouldn't give images an easier time just because we're delisting another, similar image. I'm not convinced I would support if the replacement was being nominated anew, so I'm not going to support at this time here. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of see your point, but I think it's illogical (at least in this scenario) to maintain an opinion which will give an unsatisfactory result, than to change it and achieve something, with a view to further movement if need be. I suspect that this image will not be delisted at this time. Neither will it be replaced. So we've already achieved nothing. You may wish for it to be delisted, and can state it as a preference, but if "the power station graphic" is going to remain an FP, might it not as well be the one actually being used? I don't see how a "replace for administration sake, but prefer a straightforward delist" would be a problem. If it does end up being replaced and not delisted, a new delist nom can always be forthcoming, anyway. Well, just a suggestion, :) Maedin\talk 21:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, we have three people who want it delisted, two who want it replaced. The picture will likely not be in use at the end of the discussion. It will almost certainly be delisted (and, frankly, if it's not in use at the end of the discussion, even if a load of people have shouted keep, it should be delisted...). I consider it highly unlikely (and probably outside the remit of this venue) that the image will be "replaced and not delisted". My vote doesn't make this any less likely to be delisted, just less likely to be replaced. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2010 at 13:43:18 (UTC)
Original - Galileo spacecraft image of Io. The dark spot just left of center is the erupting volcano Prometheus. Whitish plains on either side of it are coated with volcanically emplaced sulfur dioxide frost, while yellower regions are encrusted with a higher proportion of sulfur.Current FP proposed for delisting
Support as nominator --Extra999 (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic and educational value, passes all 8 criteria IMO. Acather96 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! I'm having trouble finding this volcano, though. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are these natural colours? J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This color mosaic uses the near-infrared, green and violet filters (slightly more than the visible range) of the spacecraft's camera and approximates what the human eye would see. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come the main color in each of the two are slightly different? Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The old FP shows the moon rotated 90o. It is like showing earth from above centered on the Atlantic Ocean vs centered on India. Ideally we should have a set where the two images are 180o away. I am not convinced that having two 90o away is bad, so I would support both as FP. Nergaal (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better delist that one because it has low compared resolution and is not exactly round. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the right crop. Delist and replace then. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Clear resolution and jpeg quality advantage. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, though I do think the crop a little tight. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. Changed my vote to allow for this option. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider my comment D&R too. Chick Bowen 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace everyone loves an SVG subway map! Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D/R, assuming the new map is accurate. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, assuming the new one's accurate. I'd prefer a less tight crop, but otherwise it looks good. --Avenue (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the #7 and #8 lines against this official map before getting tired of it. Looks quite accurate, and set up more clearly than the official one I think. Chick Bowen 03:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:Madrid Metro Map.svg —Maedin\talk 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2010 at 23:55:08 (UTC)
Black Currawong (Strepera fuliginosa)Replacement
Reason
I've since learned that a view of the belly is important when differentiating between the Black Currawong and the Tasmanian subspecies of the Pied Currawong. The tree is arguably more natural than the rock too.
Keep the tail is out of focus in the proposed replacement. Nergaal (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one stops down (further, already at f/5.6), then the background becomes distracting and the shutter speed begins to reduce the probability of a sharp shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D&R -- pity about the tail, but the replacement has better composition, and the pose gives a better sense of the proportions of the bird and shows its feet better. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libration of the Moon promoted in 2005; higher res version was promoted last week
Reason
A new version of this was promoted last week (File:Lunar libration with phase Oct 2007.gif) - higher res & quality. During the nom no one seemed to notice this existing version, however it seems unnecessary to feature both. Have already discussed this with the creator.
Animated map/timeline of the territorial evolution of the Confederate States of America, from first secession to end of Reconstruction. Animation has been turned off as per Wikipedia policy
Reason
Wikipedia used to follow Moore's law and allowed large detailed animated gifs to be uploaded to various wiki projects. However in April of 2010 this Village Pump ruling decreed that large animated gifs will no longer be allowed as some people now view wikipedia on mobile phone browsers that have difficulty looking at images. Since this ruling has taken affect the image is no longer animated on Wikipedia and only shows the first frame. As such since it can't be used on Wikipedia and it should be delisted.
It looks like the stronger reason for delisting is that it's not used in main space. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it was removed from Confederate States of America in August 2008, apparently due to unaddressed accuracy concerns (diff), so there might be other reasons for delisting. But the removal alone is enough. --Avenue (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Papa Lima Whiskey. --Avenue (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there I’ve been active on these old, archived Village Pump discussions and am not aware of a “decision” that said animated GIFs over the 12.5 MP limit “will no longer be allowed”. It is a convoluted thread there and a “decision” might be buried in there, but I can’t find it.
As far as I know, this is a temporary bug being worked on. This technical issue with animations is a complex matter pertaining to the way Wikipedia’s server engines scale animations. This particular animation is only 260,560 bytes and has only 42 frames. Note that I didn’t make it, but am expert on animations and see that the author A) did a magnificent job making it compact, and B) had the misfortune of making it higher resolution than would ever be used on a page and, thus, it always needs scaling.
This need for scaling never used to be a problem. However, a developer recently “threw a software switch” to handle this scaling on Wikipedia (instead of offloading the task to browsers). This was because of our category pages, some of which have hundreds of thumbnails. Offloading such a huge number of animations to scale to browsers was burdening them and increasing their RAM requirements. Unfortunately, because of the current (very simplistic) software sever tools being used after the change, scaled versions of otherwise exceedingly compact animations are causing problems for Wikipedia’s servers. We need better software and this sort of stuff comes from volunteer programmers; big updates don’t come fast.
It seems that this Commons category (titled “Animated gifs violating 12.5MP rule”) was created by the nominator here (Esemono). Note the “violating” and “rule” in the title. But, as far as I can tell, the developers working on this problem would call this issue an active “bug”; something they are trying to fix.
I’ve gone to Village Pump, (here, where the issue is still being worked), to clarify this. In the mean time, Esemono, please provide a more specific link or quote a relevant passage from the Village Pump archive that looks like a “ruling”, “decree”, and “will no longer be allowed” and doesn’t instead look like a bunch of efforts to develop a long-term solution. For that matter, would you mind pointing out where, on the current Village Pump discussions, it appears to you that developers are not working hard on this bug. If there was to be a “ruling”, “decision”, or “decree”, I should think there would have been a wider RfC on this issue and I’m not seeing it yet.
In the mean time, I would certainly suggest that the FP community not be voting to delist these otherwise fine animations just because they currently don’t work; not until it is clear that the developers have thrown up their hands and declared defeat. As far as I know, they are actively working hard at a solution to this. Greg L (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I can always take this animation, shrink it to the size it is typically used in articles, and create a version that requires no scaling. We can then have a vote here to replace it with the updated version—not delist it as an FP. Before we do that though, I suggest we throttle back, allow our jets to cool, and see where the developers think they are going. Very recently, I suggested they consider biting the bullet and adding the capability of doing what I described here on-the-fly by the server software. Greg L (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The size displayed in the thread is the size typically used in articles. These image would never be approved again at thumbnail size as the legends and all labels are unreadable. -- Esemono (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EDITED CONVERSATION OF THIS THREAD[11]: The changes were explicitly made to avoid the crashing of the scale routines of the servers. I doubt the deployment of GIF scaling will be reverted yet again. We don't allow PNG images of 12 million pixels, and now we don't allow GIF images of over 12 million pixels either. I suggest we focus on finding ways to better deal with these large GIFs, but honestly, any animated GIF of this size, should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Never have been? According to whom? My large animated images have been featured for years, and have been located in articles. There is a use, sometimes, for making a large animated image. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow. That's 4.5 years ago. From the Moore's Law article it's unclear to me whether that is two or three doublings of RAM memory storage, but that would mean an equivalent limit today should be 50 million to 100 million pixels. This would allow an animation 1.6 to 3.2 times larger than the one in the example above. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt my Sony Ericsson phone browser is that smart. And Safari 3 and earlier was terrible with larger animated GIFs. In general, it is good to assume the worst, because browsers have behaved like that. And especially if you have 200 of those full sized images in a Category page, safeguards are probably wise. Hell, ImageMagick doesn't even work frame by frame apparently, so if the problem exists there, it is likely to occur in client implementations. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Esemono: Are those discussions and musings of individuals what you consider to be a “ruling” or “decree”??? For God’s sake. You created a category titled “Animated gifs violating 12.5MP rule” when in fact, there is no such “rule.” The developers are currently working to fix this problem. Even if they ultimately decide there is no technical fix on the horizon, the better alternative to your nominating individual animations to be stripped of their FP status would be to alert the contributors who made these animations in the first place and ask them to upload a smaller one that requires no scaling. The beauty of that is all these animations would instantly start working again in every article that uses them. Greg L (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheDJ's word is God and is final; nothing can change his mind. I truly hope you're right, and TheDJ can be convinced to reverse his ruling, as alot of the images in the 12.5 violation category are my animated gifs which no longer work. -- Esemono (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t understand what User:TheDJ was saying. As for his “word is God and is final”, even Jimbo, Wikipedia’s founder, has no such powers. I trust you were joking on that bit. As for 250 pixels being the placed size, no. Clearly, this animation works fine at 400 pixels, which happens to be one of the default sizes when making those click-to-play Theora animations. Do you really think the developers (who are volunteers) have the power to tell the community that they will have to just go back and delete a pile of content (all those animations that are currently frozen)?? Because User:TheD says so(?)—which he didn’t. Even if he did say what you think he said, Wikipedia simply does not work that way. Just drop this please; you don’t seem to appreciate what is really going on with this issue. Let the developers do their thing. I expect a fix will come along soon enough. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take a big breath and calm down. Who said anything about deleting anything? The users who are voting to delist this animation are doing so because its not used in any article space a requirement for it to remain a featured image. And since User:TheDJ has deemed that, "large GIFs [over 12.5MP] any animated GIF of this size, should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been)" I doubt that is likely. -- Esemono (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update Here is what Happy-melon stated (∆ here), on Village Pump:
This has nothing to do with any discussion, "ruling", "decree" or anything else on this pump or this community. It also has little to do with the developers; this is a sysadmin-level action. Developers are working on improving both the quality and size of the finished thumbnails, and the efficiency of the thumbnailing process. Allowing larger images to be thumbnailed will be a side-effect of that latter work. Happy‑melon 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
In short, patience. Note that the software changes originally froze all scaled animations, including this animation of mine. I had created it at 280 pixels but found that the dithering in the 256-color pallet looked better if I scaled it slightly to 266 pixels to blend the dithering. Others who later used the animation in their articles simply copied my practice and placed it at 266 pixels. After finding out what was going on and it wasn’t gonna be a one or two-day fix, I went back and re-specified all placed instances to the native, 280-pixel width. When I later saw that it was again functioning on this usertalk page (where these animation issues were also being discussed), I restored the size to the smoother-looking 266-pixel width.
Clearly, not everything is yet working; there is still a subset class of animations that remain frozen: scaled ones in excess of 12.5 MP. But effort is being made in the background to slowly put everything back into order. Programmers and developers don’t expect us to start throwing stuff away. Just be patient, please.
Any content creator who wants to create smaller versions of their animations that require no scaling in articles—as a temporary, interim measure—is perfectly free to do so. That will have the added benefit of having Wikipedia better function as it was intended for our I.P. readership, who are, after all, the individuals we’re really creating content for in the first place. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'comment My words are an attempt at communicating the current opinion of this issue within the developer community. Per request of the system administrators, long ago, all scaling of animated gifs was disabled, because it was crashing the servers. This was highly undesirable because it can put enormous load on client browsers. There were pages over 50MB in size because of this disabling of scaling and this was resulting in browser crashes and many reports on the village pump and bugzilla. So with much effort a workaround was created so that scaling could become safe again. This scaling has limits. We do not allow PNGs over 12.5MP for the exact same reason (PNG and GIF are actually rather similar in this respect). Developers see little possibilities to significantly change those limits in the short future. Ergo this is the new status quo. I understand that people are frustrated, but please also understand that Wikipedia needs to account for many situations and that as a result of that, sometimes new problems arise. So either create a smaller version of the file or convert it to an ogg. There is no reason to delete the image, if someone develops new routines to scale GIF images the images might still become useful. We are working on optimizing the resultant filesize of thumbnails, but I see little indications that we can optimize the scaling software to handle the GIF format any better than now. (For those interested, this technical reason this is difficult is because GIF like PNG does not allow for simple random access of the file) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve contacted both Happy-melon and TheDJ to clarify. Happy-melon’s post mentions “Allowing larger images to be thumbnailed will be a side-effect of that latter work.” TheDJ’s post ends with …“but I see little indications that we can optimize the scaling software to handle the GIF format any better than now.” The question I have for these two are as follows:
Is it the intention of the developers to get >12.5 MP GIF animations to display when thumbnailed to a non-native size?
If it is the intention, is there a reasonable expectation that a solution will be had within—say—one month?
Unlikely, because this is even more difficult than the previous problem and it seems that that took over 2 years to fix. I think it is more likely that at some point the 12.5MP limit will be raised a bit because system resources are available.
I have been pondering putting such images behind a play button that loads the full image, but I do not consider it likely that that will become available within at least a few months. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to understand the different levels of work that is going on here. Developers are software coders, who write and improve MediaWiki code, such as our media handling routines. They are the ones who are likely to drive improvements to the gif scaling and processing code. The primary task of the sysadmins is to stop the servers from melting; and to close such huge DoS vectors as a 50MB page which anyone worth their salt can slashdot/4chan to generate huge instantaneous load. The sysadmins are the ones who say "we need this limit on animated gif size to stop the image scalers from dying"; the developers are the ones who experiment and, hopefully, come up with a solution which means the limit can be increased without killing anything. If we are able to improve the efficiency (in terms of memory and CPU usage) of the scaling process, we can safely scale larger images. Equally, we want to improve the quality of the scaling process so it doesn't sometimes increase the size of files when scaling very compressed animations. But of course, "want" is not necessarily the same as "are easily able to". Happy‑melon 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that in order to get everyone on the same page (content creators, our I.P. readership, and the developers), that any frozen animations be replaced with a generic gray image with a link to a WP-space page (and associated talk page) explaining 1) why the animation isn’t working, 2) what an interim fix is for content creators, and 3) what the short term, mid-term, and long-term plans are.
Right now there are Bugzillas (I just e-mailed everyone on that one) and Village Pump conversations and individual discussions on usertalk pages and cluster-pooches like this thread. Right now, we have boat-loads of content creators who are feeling like mushrooms: in the dark and fed the not-so-good stuff. I think it’s time that whoever thinks they have a handle the status quo to step up to the plate and get the pointers automatically being created on the affected animations pointing to a central venue where every confused person can go to. A central repository will be a welcome relief from the current state of affairs and, perhaps more importantly, may also bring more resources (developer-types) to the fold. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(*sound of crickets chirping*)
I would like to thank Greg L for informing me of this discussion, which has apparently been going on for a week; I, as creator of this image, was not notified. I will be able to respond more to the merits of the discussion later, but for the moment I'm merely submitting my annoyance. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note Golbez, but you added a comment on a quote from a discussion from this Village pump disscusion I just added the relevant conversation to this article for the benefit of, Greg L. I doubt TheDJ will respond to it unless you move the below and add it to the this Village pump disscusion:
Never have been? According to whom? My large animated images have been featured for years, and have been located in articles. There is a use, sometimes, for making a large animated image. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: sorry for the overlook about not notifying you about the delisting, my bad. -- Esemono (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how I only just learned of this, and I don't know how long FPRCs last, I ask it last at least several more days for me to address the concerns and place it back on the article, which satisfies most of the delist votes. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So according to above it was found to be inaccurate and removed from article mainspace two years ago. So you want to put it back into the same article it was removed in 2008? -- Esemono (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, once I can evaluate the issues. I have a lot on my plate and admittedly had stepped away from my animation making for quite a while, but coincidentally I started working on a new one just two days ago (a map of the history of the counties of Utah, for the FLC on that subject) so I'm kind of back in the mood. Should it have been delisted two years ago? Perhaps. But it wasn't, and I request only as much time to repair it as has been given to discussing it without my knowledge. (Also, I'm not sure I agree with the accuracy criticisms, and I'm not even sure I knew it had been removed, but again, two years is a long time, long enough to forget) --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion here, I'd like to throw in, is that the developer that brought up the 12.5mp limit for png/gif, this was 5 years ago, and even in his example a 200MP image only takes "800 megabytes of working space" in RAM. By today's standards even on home pc's thats trivial. No pc bought within the last couple years should even have to page that out and can easily accommodate 800mb in RAM for a quick operation like creating a thumbnail. As for servers in 2010, they should have up to 20x that much memory (16+gb) so 200MP should CLEARLY not be an issue anymore. Is there any MODERN response from the developers about these limits? Is these limits still in place? Because the reasoning behind them is a bit silly now given we're not in 2005 anymore. Likewise why should we capitulate to some technological limitation/roadblock. Delisting because some developer 5 years ago had an issue with file sizes is hardly something I think we should be doing. While I don't agree with the use of animated gif's anymore (simply because theres FAR better methods now a days for animation, like Flash and eventually HTML5) I think they're still a necessary evil until we're allowed to embed flash... It seems to me a bit crazy we're talking about this, when this shouldn't even be an issue for under 200MP png/gif's now a days. — raeky(talk | edits) 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but what about TheDJ assertation that 12.5MP should be banned, "any animated GIF of [over 12.5MP], should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been)" because of new phone browsers. As TheDJ states, "my Sony Ericsson phone browser [can't handle big files] And Safari 3 and earlier was terrible with larger animated GIFs." -- Esemono (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of his assertion, he does not make that decision, and I disagree with his premise, as several of mine have been presented to users. As for his phone and old browser, I'm not sure we should cater to interior or obsolete hardware or programs. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with regard to phone browsers; we can’t be degrading an electronic encyclopedia to accommodate the lowest-featured digital devices known to man (phones that fit into one’s pocket).
When the animations were first frozen, many more were affected than currently are. The proper thing to have done was have an automated banner display in place of an animation frozen in its tracks. It could have been one of those little “dust broom”’ icons saying “work in progress for a few days.” Instead, we had editors re-uploading their animations in a vain attempt to get them working again. After several days, may of the animations suddenly started working. I was unusual in that I was already registered for Bugzilla. So I posted an alert, and had someone point out that there was already a Bugzilla case being worked on it. Only then did I know to wait a few more days. So I rushed around and took care of a few, easy-to-fix, stop-gap repairs in the mean time. But few other wikipedians have such facility with Wikipedia and were nothing but confused. This whole affair has the hallmarks of a cluster-f***. It has been handled like the right foot doesn’t know what the left foot is doing in the rumpus room of a kindergarden.
It appears to me that what we now have is a volunteer developer (thanks for volunteering) pretending to speak authoritatively on behalf of precious few people on an issue by opining what he intends to do and when. There has been a galactically poor level of discussion where some developers semi-coordinate on a Bugzilla, and semi-coordinate on the Village Pump, and coordinate with each other via e-mail, and the whole time leave content providers in the dark by not doing something as simple as creating a WP-space page that frozen animations could automatically point people to. Such a central venue (a WP-space page with its associated talk page) could likely bring more volunteer developers to bear on this matter. Such simple, common-sense moves. Bafflingly, no decent and proper effort was made to alert the wikipedian community as to why our animations stopped working (as if the typical wikipedian is supposed to figure out on their own to go to Village Pump). It makes me wonder if some developers here prefer not having more chefs in the digital kitchen. That is the worse possible thing; we need to pull out the stops to highlight this issue and bring more volunteer developers into the fold. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say this ? I have been discussing GIF animations for over 2 months now with various people in various forums. I'm tired of discussing this. I will go a long way in explaining everybody how Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki work, but there are limits on how I am willing to spend my time. Complaints of Wikipedia operations can be filed at the Foundation, complaints of software capabilities can be filed in bugzilla and readily await implementation by a volunteer developer (your comments just lost you a candidate for that). If you want to find developers to fix this, go ahead and get them to join the mediawiki developer IRC channel, people will be more than willing to answer their questions about mediawiki problems. Either start doing something yourself, or stop asking me questions. There have been over 6500 software changes to the software this year, that doesn't include a few thousand changes of LAST year that were only deployed a few weeks ago. Users cannot be expected to be up to date about ALL the changes that occur, unless they subscribe to all development related discussions themselves. At times someone will post some important changes to the Village pump or in the Signpost (as these specific changes were) and that is a service, not a right. Now please leave me alone. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as creator; after evaluating it, the effort needed to bring it up to my own now-higher standards, not just the historical less-than-accuracies (now dealt with in my own copy), means I would prefer this to be delisted so I can eventually renominate the new version on its own merits. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I motion that, in the interim, there be no further FP animations nominated for delisting based on the fact that 120 pixel, gallery-size versions and scaled thumbs of our larger animations are currently frozen. The issues are not straightforward. For instance, this “NURBS” animation of mine recently won FP status. It is used in articles in its native size and works as intended in those articles. But even it doesn’t work when it is one of those little 120-pixels-wide thumbs in galleries. All these issues are being looked at by those who push bits, bytes, and nibble around with keyboards. I propose that all further technical discussions and debate on the technical aspects of this issue go back to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Perhaps in a couple of months, a clearer path forward as to what sort of animations are desirable and will have good support on Wikipedia will become clearer after some of our volunteer developers have more time with their sleeves rolled up. In this particular case, we had editors voting to delist when the contributor who created the CSA states evolution GIF hadn’t even been informed of the nomination. What we certainly need going forward is better communication amongst all concerned. It seems nothing but common sense to table FP delisting for the moment given that stripping FP status from animations isn’t a pressing crisis. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that delisting animations solely due to the current scaling issues would be counterproductive. On the communication front, I think we should include a notification field in the delist template ({{FPCdel}}), so that it's clearer to everyone who has or hasn't been notified. Something similar is included in the WP:FAR boilerplate, for example. --Avenue (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest creating a Wikiproject for animated images. A wikiproject is the traditional way to create a community around a topic. It allows for more timely communication, too. That communication could solve a lot of problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you know your way around wiki-procedures and wiki-red-tape, I’ll help with content, Timeshifter. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to coordinate this. I can help out now and then. It is not hard to start a Wikiproject. Please see:
Original Nomination, [Nomination] From two years ago, a fiasco that somehow got the image kept though is never addressed the issue of resolution and only fixed cloning errors. Let's not repeat that mistake by saying it's a pretty picture.
Delist Nothing really redeemable about this image, very low resolution, blown out highlights, etc... — raeky(talk | edits) 01:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist How did this one escape delisting for so long, this is small even by my standards and I'm usually happy to support keeping older images with smaller sizes. My personal thanks to anyone who eventually shoots a better version of this and uploads it since it's a great shot if it can be done well and at the right size. Cat-five - talk 03:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom and raeky. --Avenue (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist with grief. Nice and rare photo, but sadly too small... --George Chernilevskytalk 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unforuntately, there are a number of factors. Firstly, the resolution is low, though the picture is sharp. The image is also likely replaceable, despite that the car is uncommon. Secondly and likely more importantly it is no longer used in a meaningful and encyclopedic manner.
Original Nomination, First Delist, Second Delist It's a miracle (maybe not a miracle, per se) that this ran the gauntlet twice. Times have changed since 04/06/07 and I don't see any way to justify continued featured status.
Tagged as a featured picture by User:AndrewFlorea in November 2009. I am unable to find a discussion to promote it. I also do not believe it meets FP criteria.
Speedy delist, apparently promoted entirely contrary to our procedure. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist, there should be a warning issued with this as well from an admin! — raeky(talk | edits) 12:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second thought, this doesn't even need a delist discussion, someone just delete the tag and warn the guy... — raeky(talk | edits) 12:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist per above, I don't think it was a result of malice though - the user's first language is very probably not English. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't need to delist what was never featured, but will put this onto the 'archived removal requests' page since this subpage now exists (btw, how did you ever find it?). --jjron (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that before - that's a time consuming task, what inspired it? --jjron (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed recently that the main page upload bot had been deleting the local file pages for FPs after its day, without restoring the tags. So I decided to check to see what kind of damage had been done. Lo and behold the three ways we have counting FPs didn't agree at all :) This case I thought I would at least list here, because you never know, with all the moves/deletions/renamings/etc. JujutacularT · C 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty poor form, wonder what led to that. I tried to remedy errors and reconcile the counts less than a year ago as we headed into FP 2000, but I doubt I actually got it completely right. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_23#Massive_stuff-up. BTW, left the editor responsible a note; it seemed a good faith error - he's an irregular editor, and as NS said, possibly not English speaking, at least not as a first language. --jjron (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in article (FP, breeding plumage), plan to reinstate
Taxobox (FP, juvenile)
Reason
There are Juvenile and Breeding Plumage FPs for this species. I propose to delist this one in favour of the new one so that there can be a featured picture of each in the article. No single image could give the same EV.
Delist and replace If I understand you correctly, is being delisted, and your proposing replace with .. the other two images ( and ) are not part of the nomination and are just to illustrate how the new FP if passes will fit with the other 2? Slightly confusing I must say. — raeky(talk | edits) 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. This seems sound- clearly, there is room for the three different images. Which do you intend to use in the taxobox? J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps 2 and 3. The juvenile should probably go in the body of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my choice, as well, unless the males and females have different plumage? J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace: Agree with reasoning. Maedin\talk 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Yeah, makes sense, but to be honest this is a case where I don't really think this should have been a D&R. If you were replacing the breeding plumage with a better breeding plumage one, then sure, but you're replacing a breeding plumage with non-breeding, then just reinstating a different breeding plumage that's already featured to the article. Confusing for sure. Lighting on the delist nom isn't optimal, the replacement is good but should probably have been a regular nom. --jjron (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cut off on the left. In other copies, such as File:La_naissance_de_Vénus.jpg, it can be seen that the foot is complete, instead of cut off. I'm a little uncomfortable with considering what is only most of a famous image as amongst the best on Wikipedia. It's also no longer used in the main article on the painting, being replaced with an edit.
Keep Unless a proper replacement is found in which case Delist--Iankap99 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, we should probably swap it for the edit used in the article. Though I'm still uncomfortable with it being cut off, and would rather draw a hard requirement for completeness. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, I completely agree with Adam. This would not pass today, and so it should not be kept today. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if someone discovered the bad crop before during the nomination it likely never would of passed, so it should be delisted now since it's not accurate to the painting... — raeky(talk | edits) 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delist One of the most famous, most important, works of art ever and we delist it because of two inches missing off the left. Yeah, it's probably the right thing to do, but I still feel dirty about it. Unless it's specifically a "detail", the piece should be complete to be Featured. Dammit. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Shame we don't have this complete. (P.S. I've seen this painting at the Uffizi. It's much bigger than I expected it to be!) Maedin\talk 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It might be famous, but in its current state, it's only 95% famous. That's not fair to FP or Botticelli's work. Amphy (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right: Gustave Dore's Woodblocks did not have ruler-sharp borders; the border given is not original. Further, it's a bad crop: The bottom of the image is cut off, as can be seen by the signature on the left. It's watermarked - the T in the lower right - and, if I recall correctly, that means this is the same series as Divine Comedy edition of Doré's prints I had for a while, which I discovered had major and severe problems - as in, they cut off over 10% of some of the images, others were over-inked, and they clearly did not care in the least when preparing them. The oddly square shape of this one leads me to suspect that this is missing fairly substantial material from the top and bottom, as every single Doré illustration I've seen of this type [He does two types - labour-intensive plates, such as all our Doré featured pictures, and small illustrations, much less detailed, for pages between the plates] - has had the same rectangular dimensions.
I've done a lot of work with Doré. We have numerous Featured Pictures of his work now, from much better, contemporary editions. The bar's been raised far above this one's status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way below current size requirements. Much higher quality is possible, would not pass today; judging from arguments used in the previous delisting debates, it seems clear that our expectations and culture, as well as explicit guidelines, have changed. It's also worth noting that this was promoted before there was any formal FP criteria or nomination process; I think it's time for this one to go.
Delist per nom. I would also expect a map such as this to be in SVG, for easy future editing/translation. JujutacularT · C 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I was hoping to vote keep, but the text is just far too small for the image size. Must look like it came out of one of the very early dot matrix printers if you zoomed in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The image is simply too small. I do ask, however, why the image needs to be an SVG? Zooming in on a map provides no use to me: the amount of available detail would remain the same. Why not simply offer a high resolution PNG? I think any arguments about translation, while good for convenience, don't apply in FPC -- we often see the argument that other encyclopedias find an image valuable to be bantied around and subsequently dismissed. Cowtowner (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No- use on other projects is completely irrelevant. I will mention feature credits on other projects, but that's information rather than an argument in the image's favour. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring more to Jujutacular's comment " I would also expect a map such as this to be in SVG, for easy future editing/translation." which seemed to imply their expectation of multi-project compatability. Cowtowner (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the translation, I agree that should be not be a factor for the enwiki FPC. However, SVG does allow increased flexibility for editing purposes in general (not just cross-wiki). Mostly though, I agree with the delisting per the nominator. JujutacularT · C 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very pretty and everything, but we don't need two featured pictures of crepuscular rays- neither is really showing anything the other isn't. Though neither is blowing me away, the the other image has pride of place in the article, and, though lower resolution, has more of a focus on the rays themselves- this one is very landscape-based. It's not really adding anything to the other article in which it is used other than window dressing. (We also have a third FP of the rays.)
Delist:Agree. Maedin\talk 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC) To clarify, delist based solely on the image's technical and resolution shortcomings, without regard to other possible FPs of the subject, which may or may not also be suitable for delisting. Maedin\talk 11:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why delist this one? If we want to delist one, we really need to look at all three. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're able to- I linked them in the opening statement, and also explained why I nominated this one. This one has the smallest focus on the rays- the rays are only a small part of the picture; this one is more of a landscape. Additionally, this one is not given pride of place in the article, the other is- seems those who have edited the article agree that this is not the strongest illustration for the subject. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I've looked at all three, and I think this is the best one to delist. This one is of similar quality, but shows the rays from underneath, which the other two do not, and IMO the remaining one is better than the one nominated for delisting. --Avenue (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adam. I don't think you can single any one of them out as being any worse than the others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you feel all of them have strong EV? Three pictures, all showing basically the same thing in the same article can't all have FP-level value. J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, and so I'm asking you to shed some light on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other image has rays going up; these are going down. And it is a beautiful image; it was when it was taken, it was when it was first voted upon, and it is still a beautiful and tranquil image. I think it should appear on the Main Page a second time myself. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6-3 typically defaults to keep, but in this case, the stronger arguments in favor of delisting push the consensus that way. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 10:51:29 (UTC)
Proposed replacement Historic colour version.To be delisted A panorama of Tokyo in the mid-19th century.
Reason
To be replaced with the better-stitched, photochrom colour version.
Articles this image appears in
Formerly Edo. The photochrom colour version has been used for over a year now.
Previous nomination/s
An earlier nomination for promotion of the photochrom failed because of complaints about stitching errors (minor considering the age imo). The black-and-white copy that is the current FP has even more stitching problems, so everything speaks for the replacement. Original nomination.
Delist and replace The failed nomination is a bit of a joke if you ask me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace It's ridiculous to have this image in the much, much worse copy as an FP. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, clearly- the fact the better copy recently failed should be reason enough to lose this. However, I think the fact the replacement has already failed a nom means it should have to go through the proper process again, rather than being promoted as a replacement. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The new very is much better, but doesn't seem to be FP level to me. No idea how the original made it. Kaldari (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist only. The new version should go through a separate nomimation given it failed last time. --Avenue (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
OriginalKiwi (fruit) - hairy, usually green on the inside. If you're feeling tough, you eat the skins, too. Less than 1 negapixel.Proposed replacement Around 11MP.Alternative Currently placed on a different article (Actinidia deliciosa), not sure if that's a correct species ID.
Reason
Was replaced in article with higher resolution alternative, nominated here as a replacement.
Comment Maybe a little light? Kiwis I've seen are almost invariably a bit darker than that. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original.Delist original, do not replace with initially proposed replacement; unsure about alt. The colours in the alternative do seem odd, and the composition is worse than the original. A higher resolution doesn't outweigh these defects IMO. This all came up in its previous nominatation too. --Avenue (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The final decision always rests with article maintainers, so to speak, which may or may not mean that if we keep it and force it on the article, it will just end up in another delist nom a few months down the line. Try the alt? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, on second thought I agree with delisting the unused original, but I still don't think the proposed replacement is FP material. I've changed my !vote above accordingly. I like the other alternative more, but it seems significantly different in that it is primarily a cross-section and doesn't present a range of views of the fruit. So I'm not sure if it is appropriate to treat it as a direct replacement. I'm no expert, but I think the species attributed to it in the article is correct (not the species in the filename), and that it's probably the Hayward cultivar. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist original, no opinion on the others right now. We can't keep an image that is not in use, and it is not the job of FPC to demand that the version of the picture we like has to be used. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist original based on it not being used. I agree that the alt's composition and colour balance is slightly inferior. Maybe it's worth bringing the discussion here to the talk page of the article so that consensus can be made on which image to go for. I'd withdraw the delist vote if it could be kept. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note there. With 87 watchers, there's a reasonable possibility that one or two might respond. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the harm in delisting the original then nominating the new image for FP status the normal way. You could even run them concurrently. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as has been demonstrated, there are some who feel we should be delisting but are less sure about replacing. D&R should be for small, uncontroversial changes- if there's any kind of sentiment that the original should be delisted, but the replacement requires discussion, it should be given that discussion at a full nom. I'm not really fussed either way, but that just seems like the most sensible thing to me. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are 5 delist votes. Adam did not bold a vote, but he did "agree with delisting the original" - that counts in my book. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. That was Avenue. My eyes are playing tricks on me today. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and delist this regardless. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless uses can be found. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would putting this in the Earl Roberts article satisfy the EV requirement for everyone? Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which Earl Roberts is it? J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, bad link there. I believe it is this one. They look similar and his life story seems to fall in nicely. Cowtowner (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, we'd have to be certain, and, secondly, on what grounds do you feel the image would have EV there? J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would fit into the section currently titled "Other" which deals largely with his legacy. A caption noting his fame resulted in his being used in recruitment campaigns would be encyclopedic there. Cowtowner (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'm not wild about it. Perhaps if we had some sourced discussion of his appearance on posters, but the fact that the LOC wasn't even sure would suggest this isn't the most important or famous poster... J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the posters we have featured aren't the most important or famous; looking through some of them and their uses, it appears that this arrangement would meet the precedent for poster EV. At the same time, many of them may be candidates for delisting if we decide that this image doesn't live up to our criteria. Cowtowner (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poster that happens to feature a certain person. That doesn't mean it automatically has EV in the article about that person, and I'm not really seeing any reason to believe it does otherwise. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't see why we should have a lower precedent for images that have already been promoted than for images not yet promoted- it wouldn't pass today with that as a claim of encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not a dick ;-) (I've always though we've had a pretty good working relationship on here), I'm just looking through possibilities and interpreting the criteria and precedents. Personally, in that capacity I think the image would have been promoted given the apparently low EV standards for posters. That said the fact that this was misidentified makes it a very ambiguous case. Cowtowner (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Unindent] Let's review. I'm just going to look at WWI and WWII, since I don't think it's surprising or notable that, say, a lot of theatrical shows are illustrated with a poster for that show.
WWI:
All the featured posters illustrate one or more articles in a strong way:
Now, compare Earl Roberts. Unlike the other articles here, our article on the man is packed with images, and has no text at all about anything related to propaganda involving him. And I hardly think it's worth cutting out a FP-level copy of a John Singer Sergeant painting to make room for this. Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Adam. Further, there shouldn't be a lower EV requirement for posters- if it seems there is, it's possible some posters were promoted when they should not have been. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I was getting at, though apparently not too clearly: That there seems to be a double standard for poster EV and that we may have been a little lax in those promotions. Again, just exploring options and it's looking like we're moving towards a consensus to delist. Cowtowner (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I brought this to Durova's attention at the end of July. I suppose she's been too busy to do anything about it. I suppose it could replace the John Singer Sargent portrait, but I'd prefer it to have more context. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist, weak do not replace. Clear improvement. I would not object to the new image having to go through a nomination itself. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per Avenue's comments. J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delist and replace - God knows how the original passed - the animation is so much clearer and understandable whereas the original rather misses the attempt to track by the enemy. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace. When it went through a removal request in 2006, some people were concerned that the people were moving too fast in the animation relative to the bullets. I agree. --Avenue (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, prefer to also replace: Animation is superior, and it's not moving too fast. I think it would be unfortunate if it were any slower. Maedin\talk 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist, don't replace yet If the proposed replacement was slowed down slightly, I would strongly support it as a FP. It may be good enough as it is, but it would be more effective if someone were to add a very brief pause between the frames. -- mcshadyplTC 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 15:00:51 (UTC)
A basic, un-sprung cart in Australia. In that country and in New Zealand, it is known as a dray (but "dray" elsewhere usually means a four-wheeled wagon).
Reason
In essence low EV. It is currently used in 3 articles and contributes little in each. A breakdown is as follows:
In cart, it is used in a gallery clearly adding little to the article. Additionally, it's a poor demonstration of what a cart is: it's a broken down, rusting, unused hulk. In wheel, it is also used in a gallery. Not to mention, it's a pretty unspectacular demonstration of a wheel. In horse-drawn vehicle, it is used way down the page and is simply thrown into an already over-illustrated article. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the parts where you would actually attach this to a horse are now missing.
Delist. Convincing. Pretty picture, but currently minimal EV. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. --Avenue (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low ev in each of its articles, as demonstrated in the nom. SpencerT♦C 22:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Surprising it has stayed in the articles. Maedin\talk 06:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has always had a shortage of articles about everyday objects such as furniture, and simple vehicles and tools. The fact that we don't have an article to describe an AU/NZ "dray" is just another example of this. One thing I'd like to note about this is that if it's as broken down and unused as the nom claims, the vegetation underneath should be much more plentiful. If you look in the background, you'll see that this is possible in this environment. That means it was either recently used, or the cart was moved in order for the photo to be taken. It does strike me as a nice example of rural decay, or a landscape overtaken by progress. It's a shame that we don't have more contextual information, and equally, that Wikipedia's articles on this sort of topic are probably not very well developed. Digging around a little, this seems neither to be an uncommon sight [12], nor restricted in usage to AU/NZ (apparent London example). Here's a New Zealand example, complete with suitable horse, and a hoomin for scale (context here). And here, confusingly, is a four-wheel Australian "dray", according to the image file name, although the article calls it a wagon (and doesn't even mention drays). My final note is that we do have articles about other types of two-wheel carts, including gig (carriage) and those listed therein, so I'm inclined to think the fault is not really with the image itself. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLW, I agree with a lot of that. The unfortunate thing is that we have to judge images in the context of their articles. If one feels so inclined to write an article about drays in Australia this could certainly be renominated. As it stand I don't think it has much EV though. As for being broken down, I'm still convinced that this example isn't used regularly and that if it is a picture could therefore easily be obtained with a horse pulling it. I think that such an example would have greater EV. Cowtowner (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better to create an article than to nominate for delist and then again nominate for promote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do that yourself then. I know nothing about drays and am not convinced that this would have sufficient EV in that article to justify being featured. Cowtowner (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support to Keep I do see some EV in horse drawn vehicle article beacuse it says different types of vehicles and one is dray but other then that it does have low EV in the other articles. Spongie555 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrated a half-line entry on a list (which, as mentioned above, it seems to do badly) hardly constitutes FP-level EV. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 21:05:27 (UTC)
previous delist discussion
Reason
I know you may not expect me to nominate fungal pictures for delisting, but this is not particularly useful. It was used in lamella (mycology), but it is hardly representative and not particularly useful (at worse, it could be said to be a little confusing). It's now been replaced. It is in no way identified (beyond the fact it's a mushroom), nor is identification really possible. I will notify the nominator.
Delist — I agree with the delist rationale. (Quite probably a Parasola, FWIW) Sasata (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed Mycena or Marasmius, but you'll be better at it than me. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here for a similar individual I once photographed. These are wispy, ephemeral mushrooms that appear overnight and typically last only a few hours before fading into nothing. The white stem, dark gills, and translucent cap with margins turned upwards are pretty solid clues to narrow to genus level I think. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the issue of whether it can be identified as secondary to the aesthetic aspect. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, it isn't. We don't promote pictures just because they're pretty- we promote them because of what they add to the articles in which they are used. Secondly, this doesn't change the fact that this is not used in any articles, or the fact that there is no clear use for it. The idea that we keep a picture as featured purely because it's pretty, when it is not used in the encyclopedia, is almost laughable. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not used because you recently removed it. [13] Maybe you were right to do that—I'm not a mushroom specialist so I don't know—but you can't for that reason use that it's not in an article as a reason to delist in and of itself. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can though. It might be a slight conflict of interest to both remove the image and nom for delisting, but if it did belong in the article it would likely have been re-added by someone else (assuming it gets enough traffic anyway). Alternatively, we could discuss whether it should be re-added here. But it absolutely should be nominated for delisting if it isn't used. As I said below, being used in an article is a fundamental requirement of a FP. If it isn't, and can't be re-homed, it has to go. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But you can surely see the problem with removing it, and the same person then wanting to delist it, then telling someone who objects that they're being silly because it's not being used. I don't want to be POINTy, but all it would take to demolish that position would be to add it to an article. :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to an article where it has EV, which is all of nowhere. Yes, I removed it- two of the main areas in which I work are fungi and featured pictures; I hate to say it, but if anyone's "qualified" to remove it... Alternatively, you could pretend Sasata (who voted to delist and agreed with my reasoning) was the one who removed it- he is even more of a fungi specialist myself, and also a fairly regular participant at FPC, and took note of my edit by pointing out a stupid mistake I made. If you feel there's a procedural problem, that's fair enough, but making a song and dance about it in this instance isn't really gonna achieve much. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a song and dance. The only reason I commented more than once is that, given that there's a request for comments here, when people don't say what you'd prefer them to say, I don't think you should tell them how wrong and silly they are. And that's my final point! :) SlimVirgintalk|contribs 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Any keep vote that doesn't address the issue of the photo not having an article home is missing a rather fundamental point. A delist involving an orphaned FP should almost be a formality that doesn't need any discussion, except for the fact that it provides a convenient venue and motivation for finding the FP a new home. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Easy decision. Cowtowner (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not enough EV. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Questionable nomination as nominator unexplainedly replaced the image in the article. [14] I think it's more suitable than the alternative now used. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to mushroom for now so that it's not delisted just because it's not being used, but I agree that it seemed very appropriate in the article it was removed from. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 16:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep images just because they've been slotted into an article somewhere. We keep images when they are used in a valuable way. PLW, yes, I removed the image from the article in which it was used (to which it was added by someone just to give it a home, not because it had any real value there) as part of a quick effort to clean up the article, which is on a subject I edit a lot. It's adding nothing to mushroom, where it's "just another pretty image"- we should not be adding images to articles to stop them being delisted, that is completely the wrong way to do things. Would you have added it there if it was not nominated here? Of course not- it adds nothing there, and it was not added with the intention of improving the article. I can't believe I'm having to have this conversation- why are people so scared of delisting images?! J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped that image out for something actually related to the section in question... We shouldn't use images just because they're FPs, we should use images that are going to add to the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the collapsed discussion above, several opined delist while the image was not being used in an article. The image was added to an article later in the nomination, which I believe voids some of the votes, and also invalidates the closure as delisted. I think it's fair to relist this.
Delist. Adding nothing to mushroom, to which it was added purely so that it was being used somewhere. We should not add images to articles just so that they are in use in the article space- we should add images when they are adding something. Also, I don't think it is fair to unilaterally overturn a closure, especially without discussing it with the closer (if Makeemlighter said he was happy for this to be relisted, disregard this part of the comment...). If you feel the image should be featured, you shouldn't decide that the delisting was invalid, you should renominate it. If this genuinely is FP material, it'll pass there, will it not? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I had forgotten to notify Makeemlighter of the relisting, I've done that now. I meant to notify you at the same time, sorry! Maedin\talk 11:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I haven't given opinion on either the mushroom's suitability for FP or its suitability in the article. I've only noted that the circumstances changed during the nomination and that votes should have been clarified before delisting. Maedin\talk 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps it would be easier to just contact those who opposed based on the fact it was not used in any articles ( in the first place to see if their opinions were affected? Then, if some thought it should be kept, it could be reopened or renominated? We're all aware of how many of these discussions close as no consensus, and that would not be a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cleverly taken photograph of gills, and the only photographic example of them in the article, which I think is essential given that the majority of commonly encountered mushroom species have gills. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does not display the gills in a particularly useful way. Sure, it's a pretty picture, and sure, it shows that this mushroom (whatever it is) actually has gills, but it doesn't really show what gills are or what they do. I've said this before- I'd love there to be hundreds of featured pictures of mushrooms. That doesn't mean I'm gonna support anything that comes along, and this one is adding nothing to that article- as has been said, it was added to that article so that it was used somewhere, not because it added anything in particular. The fact that it was forced back into the article (in a different place to where it was originally used) after it was initially removed from that article is somewhat telling. (Also, to reiterate, I do not feel that this discussion should be taking place in this format- someone cannot unilaterally reopen a discussion just because they do not like the outcome of the discussion.) J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about assuming good faith for five minutes? I think we can all see that Diliff's vote was based on the image not being used, if not a call to action. By the end of the debate, the image was being used, so the concern was addressed and that conditional vote fell, imo. Another vote was completely unspecific in its rationale and hence questionable. It's rare that we can close a debate with more than a borderline consensus of five delists (and kept ones are usually by "no consensus", which offers a variety of interpretations). Remedies have been discussed but no conclusion reached, partly because proposals get not responded to, and there's no collaboration (very sad). Perhaps you need to take a look at yourself and ask whether you frequently expect things to be served to you on a silver platter. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure what a lot of that is meant to mean, but you ask me to assume good faith, then immediately dismiss someone's vote as "questionable"? Right. Why are you so desperate to keep this picture? It has minimal encyclopedic value (people are still scrapping around trying to find some value- that hardly reeks of it being of great importance...) and the quality is low. This wouldn't pass today. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one clearly desperate to delist. Meanwhile, you haven't made a single substantiated argument, instead sticking to strong language - "scrapping", "reeks", "useless" - I've made a number of very good points for why this is worth keeping, but I'm not expecting you to change your firmly entrenched, bordering-on-political views, or indeed to step back from the discussion and accept someone else's viewpoint as legitimate. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm desperate to delist due to the lack of value, yeah. I've made my arguments clear; if you can't see them, you aren't looking. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This image is not a good picture to illustrate gills. This image would perhaps fit well in the article backlighting (lighting design), if it didn't already have too many images. Further, I doubt the technical quality of the image would be sufficient to pass now at FPC. Sasata (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the third image there has more of a place than this one - none of the current images in that article illustrate backlighting with translucency as the key property. That said, I found that the applications section of transparency and translucency was unillustrated, and while it probably needs major expansion (article is very biased towards the underlying physics and chemistry, with applications as an afterthought), I think it provides a reasonable starting point. The article itself should probably be tagged with something between {{technical}} and {{unbalanced}}, but I couldn't find the perfect template for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist does not clearly illustrate the gills, or really any part of the mushroom for that matter. Specimen also looks old/shriveled. deBivort 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Sasata has previously stated, these are ephemeral on a timescale of hours, and given where the sun has to be in the sky, I'd say this photo couldn't really be taken any other way unless we're talking about cultivating the species (doubt this has been tried, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't seen as good an image as this on WP of gills. I can't see any reason to delist it. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is a WP image with better gills, even this non-FP. At least in these images it's possible to tell what's going on, shape wise. Besides, whether or not there is a better image on WP is not a sufficient criterion for promotion to FP. deBivort 01:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DelistWeak delist. First I would like to say that it's a fine picture and well deserves it's FP status on the Commons. But the argumentation for its delisting seems very strong to me. As for the gills, this is not the best example by far (as pointed out by de Bivort). Also I find it hard to see the EV of the image, and since EV is crucial for WP-FPs, I think I must vote for delisting. --Priest zadok (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems to provide some illustration for the subject matter in question. Not being an unreasonable person, I'll change my vote to 'weak delist'. --Priest zadok (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist - Adds a little bit to mushroom (the article already has an illustration of gills) and a tiny bit to transparency and translucency (why is it put in the Applications section?), but overall I don't feel like it has enough EV to be featured on Wikipedia. It is an excellent photograph, however, and could probably be featured on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not a particularly strong candidate in any article IMO. The image that Debivort links to is a much better example of gills on a mushroom. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 01:20:57 (UTC)
The Grenville Diptych was produced for Richard Temple-Grenville, Marquess of Chandos the son of the first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos between 1822 and 1839. The diptych shows 719 quarterings of the family. The left hand panel of the diptych lists the quarterings. These include ten variations of the English Royal arms, the arms of Spencer, De Clare, Valence, Mowbray, Mortimer, and De Grey, among others.
Reason
While this might meet the size criteria, I think it fails in the quality realm. It's also just not a very clear scan. This would be much more appropriate as an SVG, especially considering the size of the smaller quarterings, which could use more detail (or at least less blur), therefore it is not one of Wikipedia's best works.
Delist. Interesting, certainly, but I agree that the quality could be far higher here. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I was the one who nominated this one for FPC in the first place. A pity, since this image had a place of honor on the April Fool's main page for 2008. But I can't argue with the rationale presented for delisting it. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for two reasons: (1) the original is a scan of a half-toned reproduction [15], and (2) the other half of the diptych is not available, nor has it been transcribed for us. SVG argument is nonsense, you'd be working for more than a few weeks to reproduce the intricate border pattern plus shading in a vector format. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it would still be preferable in my opinion. Didn't necessarily say it was practical, though. upstateNYer 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely different beast to any other coat of arms - this one was not made for use on official dispatches etc. Completely impractical for most things, and almost certainly designed as a sort of joke or fancy. I will therefore argue that this is not a case for being illustrated conceptually, but rather a single, once-off piece of art closer in spirit to Botticelli's Birth of Venus than to a traffic sign or simple coat of arms (where SVG would be actually appropriate). So in my opinion, a raster graphics reproduction is the correct medium for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. You wouldn't vectorize this for the same reason you wouldn't vectorize the Mona Lisa. At the same all other COAs are represented like this somewhere. But it doesn't matter, that's not the point of this discussion. But I understand what you mean now. upstateNYer 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 00:24:25 (UTC)
Reason
Poor quality, esp. background, frankly it would never pass if nominated at FPC today. EDIT: Actually it turns out someone uploaded a stretched out version of the original image, though the quality and lighting of that one is still sketchy.
Delist — I'ḏ♥One 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The quality is terrible when viewed in full size. Shame, looked nice small. S Masters (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Quality is lacking, colours are unnatural. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Wouldn't be too difficult to replicate though at thumb it looks pretty good. In addition to the above the lens distortion is clearly visible along the horizon line. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Blue, red and saturation are all very comprehensively blown. Though I can see some EV in showing different stages of ripening and the scale and exactitude of cultivation, the overall impression is that this is from an epoch when aesthetic value was considered more important than it is today. I would like to express "no prejudice" as to whether the larger upload is genuine or artificially upsampled. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 13:51:14 (UTC)
A traditional Chaga hut in Kilimanjaro. See image page for lengthier caption.
Reason
Not only was there an exceptionally weak/poor consensus to promote this image originally, but it just genuinely doesn't strike me as meeting Criterion 3 – it's a fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot of someone moving about outside a hut. Seriously, Wikipedia has much better than this IMHO!
Interesting. I really don't like the overexposed sky, and that discussion would certainly not be closed as a promote today (not that that we should be retrospectively applying that rule to old discussions, of course). I'd be interested in hearing what Muhammad has to say. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I was on the verge of opening this discussion myself. Obviously Muhammad, you are one of our best photographers, but this one really doesn't do it for me. The blown highlights at top pretty much spill into the top half of the image and kill the photo for me. I don't think this should have ever been promoted. No offense meant to you, of course, Muhammad. upstateNYer 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the image was promoted, there was some objection raised on the talk page and it was decided that had the unedited version been nominated since the beginning, the image would have passed without difficulty. Regarding the blown highlights, quoting one of our most recognized photographers, this is what Diliff said,"I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor.". Additionally, the image has very high EV and is the only image of the subject on wiki. Another photographer Dschwen said, "I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro". The extensive caption on the image page shows that the image is not just of another hut but a whole set of customs and traditions that are associated with the Chaga culture. --Muhammad(talk) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further proof that the image is not a drab; usually my macro pictures get around 10k visitors when they are POTD. This hut image received 19k visitors! It received almost twice the average visitors for the two days preceding it. Had it been a boring image, I am sure it would have gotten less not more. --Muhammad(talk) 03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are surely not determining the 'featured' status of images by how many visits they get, now, are we? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. You skip over everything I say and then point out that little bit? You stated that the image didn't meet criterion 3, I in turn ask you, if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? And the page views are just a side by statistic. How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? Criterion 3 clearly states that images need not be aesthetically pleasing, "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative". --Muhammad(talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it. if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? The admins' noticeboard gets more page views than many featured images, but it is not among Wikipedia's best works: quite the reverse, in fact! How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? I've not looked, actually, because this piece of information is irrelevant. Images do not automatically become 'featured' simply because they depict something not shown in any other image on-wiki. And furthermore, the image neither shocks, impresses nor particularly informs me. And that presumably goes for the others who have commented here. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sorry that you don't find the image informative. During the nomination, the reviewers clearly found it quite informative. Regarding the rarity, again quoting criterion 3, "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all". I have no doubt this image meets criterion 3, but you have the right to your opinion and I will respect that. --Muhammad(talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misinterpreting "unique" – the criterion (listing it alongside "historical images") was clearly referring to an image which is necessarily unique in general; for example, if only one photograph was ever taken of King George III, then it is obviously the only one that it exists at all, and no more could ever be created. Your picture, while it so happens that Wikipedia does not have any others at the moment, is almost certainly not the only image of a Chaga hut in existence, and even if it is, anybody could go and take a new one at any time. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say we do get a new image in the future, how would it be less "fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot"? --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you seem to be assuming that every topic is entitled to a featured image. So if we get a new photo, which is equally uninspiring and dreary – then that shouldn't be a featured picture either. Not a good argument for featuring this particular image. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that you have taken the best possible image of a Chaga hut (ie. "How would anyone else's picture possibly be any better?") which seems no little amount vain.╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't imply any vanity. I simply wonder how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't. Perhaps next time I should visit the place with a paintbrush and some rainbow paints ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take that part back. As for your wondering how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't – perhaps you're right. Of course, the composition and the exposure could be improved, but that's all beside the point: it would only matter if 'featured' status was automatically granted to the best image of any given subject. But in fact, it is only given to outstanding images, and if it is not possible to capture an outstanding image of a Chaga hut then that's OK, and it doesn't get featured status. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if for nothing else than for the weak composition. Nergaal (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because this discussion was never resolved but should have resulted in a delisting because promotion conditions weren't met. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Sorry Muhammad, I find myself agreeing with the reasoning above. The picture isn't really blowing me away. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies. A delist of one of my images was bound to happen. I am just glad all my insects are safe ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This image just doesn't strike me as FP quality.... — raekyt 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 11:55:52 (UTC)
This paper clip is under the water level, which has risen gently and smoothly. Surface tension prevents the paper clip from submerging and from overflowing the blue glass.
Reason
Again, this picture has been removed from the article in which it was originally used. It seems that the picture is popular among the FPC crowd, whilst unpopular amongst the editors of that article. Last time it was nominated for delisting, it was added back into the article with some attempts at discussion. I don't think adding it back again would be a good idea; featured pictures should not be the cause of disputes between "featured picture people" and editors of specific articles.
Delist. I support the use of the image in the article but unfortunately also accept the consensus of the editors in that article. They seem to have been overwhelmingly convinced that this looks like rubber and not like the surface of a liquid. I disagree, but eh, what can you do? Ðiliff«»(Talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree, then why go with mob psychology? If the editors in that article feel strongly enough about it, they should voice their opinions in this themselves (and in case they don't know about this delist nomination, it might be a good idea to inform them in the discussion). Anyway, I think that this picture is special because it actually shows the contour of the water and how it "bulges out", whereas the other picture that Jujutacular linked below does not show this as clearly. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going with mob psychology. I've registered my disagreement already as there has already been extensive discussion about the inclusion in the article on the article talk page. We're really only delisting this image because they refused to accept it as a valid illustrative image for surface tension (the consensus was that it looked like rubber, not water and was therefore misleading), not because of the merits of the technical image itself. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: The image of paper clip floating on water, currently in Surface tension seems better.--RedtigerxyzTalk 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and this image is loads better than the paper clip image there (imo). Jujutaculartalk 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Relic38.jpg)
.jpg)
Africa, almost 32MP.
South America, 72MP.
Australia, almost 23MP.
Antarctica, almost 41MP.
North America, less than 3MP..jpg)
, but it has a few blown highlights in unfortunate places. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --I'ḏ♥One 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
_in_flight_over_Manhattan,_circa_1931-1933.jpg)
.jpg)
Original
Male replacement
Female replacement
_Classic_hatchback_01.jpg)
-- AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Delist (breeding plumage)
Replace (non-breeding plumage)
Not in article (FP, breeding plumage), plan to reinstate
Taxobox (FP, juvenile)
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight_over_Manhattan,_circa_1931-1933.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
is being delisted, and your proposing replace with 
.. the other two images (
and 
) are not part of the nomination and are just to illustrate how the new FP if passes will fit with the other 2? Slightly confusing I must say. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
_1_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
_2_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://www.coreldownunder.org.au/images/members_pics/kelvin_r/Bethanga%20old%20dray%201972%20PE3%20oils%202007.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c0/20060510185738!Grenville_Diptych.jpg){kind=link}
