Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Millennium Bridge, London

Millennium Bridge, London edit

Millennium Bridge, London

Reason: Low resolution, false colour, cut off.
Nominator: Pstuart84 Talk

Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Black and white isn't exactly "false colour", and 1381 pixels wide is 381 pixels above the minimum for Wikipedia FPs. Are you thinking of Commons standards? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It meet the standards but only just, which is why I said low resolution and B&W is certainly false colour in that the subject is not monochrome in reality. Pstuart84 Talk 10:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we differ on the meaning of the word "just". This image is only 119 pixels short of even the Commons requirement. I don't see how you can cite that as a motivation for delisting. I really don't. 1000 pixels is the requirement. This image meets it. And black and white is NOT "false colour" (see article). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's quite clear I said it was "low resolution" and not that it failed the minimum size requirement. There is also no good reason to feature anything other than a true-colour image of this bridge. Pstuart84 Talk 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll echo Pstuart84's sentiments here. We've already discussed the criteria in other noms and I think you'll find (although it doesn't seem to be spelt out clearly enough on the page) that the minimum resolution is merely a minimum to be taken seriously, but not necessarily the minimum to be automatically accepted without further examination. It would be short-sighted to be too absolute on resolution, since there are so many factors involved. We can and will still apply our own judgement on whether there is sufficient detail in the image given the particular subject and how significant/easily replicable it is, and also whether it is satisfactorily sharp for a given resolution. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the article I quoted: When applied to black-and-white images, true-color means that the perceived lightness of a subject is preserved in its depiction. Was it too much trouble to read? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a lot of artifacts combined with lack of sharpness Thisglad (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This really should be in color. Mangostar (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise that grey is the actual colour of the subject? Image:Millennium Bridge750pix.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Making it equally important to have the image in color, so that readers can tell the bridge is gray. Mangostar (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the cutting off of the side is unfortunate however the image of the bridge span itself which is really the main focus of the bridge in my opinion is what matters. Whether an image is in black and white or color except when the color of the object is a key element (pictures of flora and fauna for example) in my opinion never has and never will be a valid reason to oppose an image's promotion or delist it and if it weren't for the image cutting off part of the bridge I would probably be using "strong" instead of "weak" as the adjective to describe my views. Cat-five - talk 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist the closest part of the bridge seem soft like inadequate DOF/poor choice of hyperfocal point. Fairly low resolution, and easily reshootable. Mfield (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no reason for B&W. Cacophony (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I think I may have a better photo than this one, or if not, it shouldn't be too hard to take a new one. Plenty of construction cranes now sour the skyline around St Pauls Cathedral though, which doesn't help the view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If somebody had actually got in touch with me, I could have provided a better copy from the original source... This version was cropped etc for aesthetic reasons, not designed for 'accuracy'. PaulLomax (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted MER-C 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]