Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Retained[edit]

Eastern banjo frog[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 08:50:15 (UTC)

Reason
A rather sterile photo of a rather lifeless frog. Technically great, but aesthetically awful.
Articles this image appears in
Limnodynastes dumerilii
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eastern banjo frog white bg.jpg
Nominator
Kaldari (talk)
  • Delist — Kaldari (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no issues-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, I don't think this would pass today. The white background is rather harsh, the composition is uninspiring and the crop is very tight. The frog's in a rather unnatural pose; it's fairly clear it has just been picked up and placed there. I think the shadow is fake, too. This isn't the worst picture in our galleries, but it has nothing on the likes of File:Dendropsophus microcephalus - calling male (Cope, 1886).jpg. Even the much more comparable File:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg is stronger- the pose is more natural, the lighting less harsh and the composition and crop more interesting. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging by the very unnatural pose of the hind legs, I imagine the frog may have been stuck in the refrigerator for a while before the shot, but who knows. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From a scientific point of view, an illustration like this is good. Aesthetics are not everything. — raekyt 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The background makes fixing the tight crop simple. We can give the critter some more room and upload over the top when this nomination is finished. The background/lighting is a little harsh, but the frog is sharp and the detail is decent. Seems acceptable to me and worth retaining. (p.s. Pretty sure this is the same frog, at the pick-up location.) Maedin\talk 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you want artistic go to commons, this is high quality, illustrates the subject, and fits the topic of the articles it is placed in well, which at least in my opinion make it a good featured picture. Cat-five - talk 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for unnatural pose, lifelessness, harsh lighting. --Avenue (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Raeky and Cat-five. I would definitely also support a D&R for a less tight crop. NauticaShades 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good quality. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Swamphen[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2011 at 21:53:39 (UTC)

Purple Swamphen
Reason
Not used in the article space. The article in which it was once used is illustrated by other strong photographs.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)
  • Delist — J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I prefer this one to Fir's other shot that is used in Purple Swamphen, in large part because of the detail on the legs. It doesn't appear that this image was ever used at that article. Rather, it was in Pukeko until being removed on Jan. 6 for the following reason: "show bird from NZ in introduction sized to 300px - previous one was from Australia." I guess that's fair, since the article says "Pūkeko is the common name, derived from the Māori language, for the Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) in New Zealand", but this image is far superior to the current lead image in that article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better if it wasn't off-topic. The article's subject (Pukeko, i.e. Purple Swamphens in New Zealand) has changed from what it was previously (the subspecies, whose range includes Australia), better reflecting the article's content. This is still a good image - could it claim a spot in the Purple Swamphen article, perhaps? --Avenue (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless a suitable home can be found. --Avenue (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of nomination there was only one article, Pukeko. I was unhappy about calling the bird article by something other than it's common name. WP:NZ people disagreed. The result was a split into Pukeko for all of the NZ-centric stuff, and Purple Swamphen for information about the bird. I wouldn't mind betting that the Purple Swamphen article creator just used the other image for a bit of variety. Consequently I've put it in Purple Swamphen. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming that it's placement in this new article continues to stand up to scrutiny. Cat-five - talk 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Jujutacular talk 04:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexz Johnson[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 04:15:42 (UTC)

The current FP, an edit of the original image
The original image, which did not gain consensus
Another edit, which was not the preferred edit
Reason
This image never really made it into the Alexz Johnson or Jude Harrison articles. I made the original promotion of the edit and replaced the original image in the articles per FPC closing procedure. The edit was then promptly removed. I replaced it, and it was again removed. I tried to start a discussion, but it didn't really go anywhere. I don't particularly care if any version of this image is featured. It just doesn't make sense to keep the edit as an FP when the original is used in the most relevant articles. Any of the following would be acceptable outcomes: delist the edit; delist the edit and replace it as FP with the original; or keep the edit and replace the original in the articles.
Articles this image appears in
Instant Star soundtracks
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexz Johnson
Nominator
Makeemlighter (talk)
  • Neutral — Makeemlighter (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use FP in article it has more realistic colours. --99of9 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP, that is the one used in the article. I'm not convinced by the arguments made to use the yellower image in any of the preceding discussions. Googling Jude Harrison and Alexz Johnson shows that this is the only time she's in the Simpsons; the current FP is a more accurate representation of her and the character. Cowtowner (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP. Better colors. The only editor (Jfitch) arguing for the yellow-ish version has not edited in some time; we can revisit the issue if he wants to bring it up. Jujutacular talk 17:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP: It's been placed back into the articles (by someone not typically around FPC), where it should have been all along. If Jfitch insists again, it's not a matter for FPC but for some form of conflict resolution—plenty of venues better suited to dealing with it. Maedin\talk 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP. As someone somewhat sympathetic to Jfitch's arguments, I have to agree with the above. If a RfC or something similar determines that the other image should be used, so be it, but until then... J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury of Athens at Delphi[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 03:21:56 (UTC)

Treasury of Athens at Delphi (modern reconstruction)
This one's a bit better
Reason
The old image had mixed reviews at the initial nomination, including concerns about perspective, and also has noise, some speckling, and a lack of sharpness (I kind of feel like the focus might be on the near wall rather than on the building). I'm proposing an alternative as a possible delist and replace, although I'm not crazy about the angle or exposure and I think a straight delist is also a possibility.
Articles this image appears in
Delphi
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Treasury of Athens
Nominator
Chick Bowen
  • Delist and weak replace — Chick Bowen 03:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the image is better than the suggested replacement which has a bad composition with too much weight (proportion of the image, light) on the side wall. I disagree with comments from the previous nomination that the perspective distortion would need correction: Greek architecture was clearly conceived with a view on how the building is really seen. While I agree that a better image of the subject would be possible, I don't see any urgent need to delist this one. --Elekhh (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, do not replace. I don't think the original is up to scratch quality-wise, and I'm not wild about the composition of the alt. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't replace The alt is worse lit and worse composition. I'm not experienced enough to know whether the original meets the quality standards, but I'm confident that the alt shouldn't be featured. --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, do not replace, per J Milburn. Jujutacular talk 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, do not replace Original's quality isn't high enough. The suggested replacement is okay but not up to FP standards. That shot makes me think, though, that an FP-quality picture of the Treasury of Athens is definitely possible. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I agree, and was disappointed that that was the best I could come up with given the attractiveness of the whole category. I think it doesn't occur to our more historically serious photographers to shoot these reconstructed monuments, but they have their own educational value distinct from the less adulterated artifacts at other sites. But in general we don't have enough archeological FPs. Chick Bowen 02:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Harris[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 02:40:18 (UTC)

A man at a coconut shy stand
Reason
Too small.
Articles this image appears in
Coconut shy, Funfair
Previous nomination/s
Not available
Nominator
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
  • Delist — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I love the atmosphere... --kaʁstn 09:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not too small; it meets the size requirement, so your reasoning is insufficient. Also, why say no previous nominations are available? There are two: original nomination, previous delist attempt. Maedin\talk 22:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be reasonable to describe it as above the minimum but still "too small" to fill its encyclopedic purpose. I've no opinion on this image at this time, but pooh-poohing any argument that an image is small if it is above 1000px wide or tall is not particularly useful. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't pooh-pooh an 'argument'—there wasn't one. I invited him to expand on his reasoning, as his stated one was factually incorrect. Seems fairly obvious and useful to first ascertain whether or not he had simply misunderstood the size requirements, by correcting and asking for more detail. Maedin\talk 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually my main reason for withdrawing is that I was convinced by reading the opposition to the previous delisting nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn now that I see there has been a previous failed delisting attempt. The file description page didn't have a link, and because of the low resolution I assumed it was something from 2004 and therefore didn't have a nomination page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Jujutacular talk 04:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 02:11:54 (UTC)

Chris Young pitching
Reason
The pitcher is less sharp than the audience behind, giving him a weird "Photoshopped" look (obviously it's not, I'm just using the metaphor to describe what it looks like). It is visible at preview size and even more obvious at 100%.
Articles this image appears in
Chris Young (pitcher), Wrigley Field, Starting pitcher, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG
Nominator
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
  • Delist — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist wrong focus, too short focal length with a too closed aperture → poor DOF, image a bit soft, face in shadow. Nice dynamic though. --kaʁstn 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I've got to agree, I'm not wild about this. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The quality's not fantastic, but it's OK. It's not correct to say the focus is on the crowd - look at his legs - it's just that the upper part of his body is a bit motion blurred. DOF issues are largely due to it being taken with a compact. --jjron (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator & creator now notified. Does everyone simply ignore that instruction (and common courtesy) now?? --jjron (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I knew this day was coming, but not this soon. The argument for this image was always its high EV. It continues to be the lead image on 5 pages (Four-seam fastball, Fastball, Starting pitcher, Chris Young (pitcher), All-Star Final Vote) 4 years later. There probably should be special considerations for such images. I think it is a solid keeper for 2 or 3 of those lead positions. Additionally, it remains in 5 other articles: (Bullpen, History of Wrigley Field, Pitcher, Scoreboard, Wrigley Field). I understand that quality requirements have increased, but I think the encyclopedic merits of this image continue to warrant its inclusion among WPs finest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listing lots of articles does not prove the EV. If we accept as that this picture is somewhat lacking quality-wise, what role does it serve to fill that could not be filled by something else, and is of extremely high value to a reader? J Milburn (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur that listing lots of articles does not prove EV. The point is that it is the main image 4 years later in 5 articles. I think this delist is somewhat premature. It will likely be replaced as the lead image (but remain in the article) of his own bio since he has changed teams. In time it may be replaced at All-Star Final Vote and Fastball. However, its high EV comes from Four-seam fastball and Starting pitcher. This is about as good a view as we are going to see of an action shot for a Four-seam fastball because most live shots will be 10x as far away even if they are higher quality images. Thus, the view of the grip will not be as good. Also, the Starting pitcher shot showing the scoreboard so visibly in the background to demonstrate that the game is clearly about to start (as per the caption) is also a very high EV shot. This image should remain as an FP until it is replaced as the lead image in at least a couple of its current uses by superior shots, IMO. Consider carefully its EV at Four-seam fastball and Starting pitcher, which is very high and not likely to be replaced since most professional-caliber photographers at games don't release images and this is a unique perspective of both. EV remains very high even though this is a below average FP in terms of technical merits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Action sports photography at stadiums is double-tough for volunteer contributors. They’re in the stands whereas the pros are out front, often with privileged angles unavailable to the public. I’ve very seldom seen action sports photography on Wikipedia that, as a class, is up the standards that other genres achieve on Wikipedia. If we want these sports action shots to be contributed to the project, we have to keep the contribution process rewarding and fun (it’s an all-volnunteer collaborative writing project) and cut this genre some slack so that one’s contribution receiving FP status seems readily achievable. Going about delisting pictures is not how we do that.

    The real test of whether this picture deserves delisting is whether another action picture of Chris Young comes along that gets through the FPC process. I just looked the Chris Young (pitcher) article and this picture still headlines the article. Until there is a clearly better action shot to use in the article (one with the sunlight on his face and zoomed tighter), this one still clearly encyclopedically illustrates the article and apparently does so better than anything else we have at the moment. So I’d suggest we not busy ourselves second-guessing ourselves (the FPC community awarded it FP status for apparently good reason the first time around) until volunteer contributors can do better than this. Keeping it fun and rewarding with the prospect of winning an award, of sorts, for the effort: That is how we encourage quality contributions. Greg L (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep The EV of this is high. It is one of the best images of Chris Young we have; however, his arm and uniform are a tad blurry. I would have used a shutter speed of 1000 or 2000 instead of 640. I would like the focus to be more on him, but, it is one of the best images in its particular genre. Sometimes we need to judge each genre separately. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer ploughing[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 01:44:16 (UTC)

A suitable caption for the image
Reason
This image was promoted in 2004. I first noticed this image in November 2006, and nominated it for delisting, mainly because it didn't meet the size requirements. A higher resolution version was found, but I was still surprised that it was kept. It was nominated for delisting again in November 2008 by Diego pmc, but was kept. I recently came across this image again, and I really don't think it meets today's standards. It's a good depiction of ploughing, but there are a few issues which I feel stop it from being a featured picture. The lighting is not perfect - It looks like a fairly overcast day. Much of the image appears fairly soft, not perfectly in focus. There are blown highlights on the rightmost upper edge of the white horse. Finally, the view of the ploughing apparatus is obscured by the horses. This is not difficult to reproduce, and I think we could do better.
Articles this image appears in
Many. It's used in Plough, Template:Agriculture and Template:WikiProject Agriculture.
Previous nomination/s
FPC promotion, First delist nomation, Second delist nomination
Nominator
Mahahahaneapneap (talk)
  • Delist — Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A nice picture, but somewhat below the current FP bar. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per last time; as I said then "Good shot, well composed" - still applies. Good EV and very widely used; more than makes up for minor technical issues. And not difficult to reproduce? Hmmm, now when was the last time I saw someone using horses to hand-plough a field? Well, that would be never. FWIW focus is on the white horse. Let's see "better" before we delist ... (the "we could do better" argument is a pet peeve of mine – of course we could do better, you can say that about anything; it's meaningless!). --jjron (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very good photo, FP for me -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not an expert, but I've had a think about this: there is something about this photo that reminds me of 35mm film, perhaps its the colour saturation (although I realise after looking at the info table that it was taken with a sub-professional Canon digital camera). I'm not sure that this is even a criticism, perhaps it just adds a little nostalgia to what is a really good rustic photograph in many ways. TehGrauniad (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --kaʁstn 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still good enough quality to be considered FP quality, relevant to its article and depicts the subject well. You have every right to keep nominating this ad-infinitum but I'll suggest that if this nom fails just let it be, it'll be a clear sign that consensus favors keeping this image and that it hasn't changed and probably isn't changing anytime soon. Cat-five - talk 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: mostly what Jjron said. Maedin\talk 08:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbler Snapper rope tricks[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 01:22:38 (UTC)

Nuclear detonation from the "Tumbler Snapper" test series showing fireball and "rope tricks" by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Reason
Fails criterion 2; does not meet minimum resolution. I'm sure a higher resolution version exists somewhere. Uploader is now blocked.
Articles this image appears in
High speed photography, List of nuclear weapons tests of the United States, Operation Tumbler-Snapper, Rapatronic camera, Rope trick effect
Previous nomination/s
Original FPC in 2005
Nominator
Seegoon (talk)
  • Delist — Seegoon (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A photograph of this type isn't just a standard photograph, and reproduction of these events is all but impossible. Finding a higher resolution scan of this image may not be feasible as well, so just saying it may exist isn't enough to justify desisting this historic image. And as a final note this is only a small fraction below the minimum size requirements, something that can easily be justified even today for a nomination of a very rare historic image. — raekyt 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raeky. --Elekhh (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Raeky. Half an hour search did not yield higher resolution picture. At least I manged to replace the file with much better one that has no moire and better contrast, which means it can be viewed and printed in higher resolution than before. Jakuzem (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think I remember seeing this picture in a book I own that may be a higher resolution. I'll open a D&R if I can find it. Jujutacular talk 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I highly doubt a better version exists; the exposure here is on the order of fractions of a microsecond three microseconds.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 06:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is certainly no better image available. This photograph was in Harold Edgerton’s book, Moments of Vision, and I spoke to him about this and another image from that series some years before his death. It was shot with his ten-million-FPS Raptronic camera, as I recall, though it might have been the 1-million FPS earlier version. Greg L (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis launch plume[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 18:13:15 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Atlantic launch plume showing shadow.
Reason
I love the scene, but it has serious quality problems: compression artifacts, chromatic aberration and blown highlights.
Articles this image appears in
Space Shuttle, STS-98, Plume, Plume (hydrodynamics)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Space_Shuttle_launch_plume_shadow
Nominator
RunningOnBrains(talk)
I looked through there, thanks. We do have a lot of Shuttle stuff. I do like the shot and it shows something that those who have lived in Florida will know, but others really will not (something special). That said, I also read the initial acceptance and there was the (reasonable) point made that despite its interestingness, it is not really illustrative like a diagram or the like. I do find the shot beatiful and on a notable topic, so would be fine with it staying. That said, we don't lose anything key with it gone either. maybe I am slightly towards retention as an FP given that we have the photo either way and that FP is a bit more about beauty than about EV (and I say this being one who always bangs the EV drum). On the technical photog aspects, I am stupid, so don't take my comments as meaning a thing there.TCO (reviews needed) 02:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it isn't particularly illustrative of a specific topic (at least in any of the articles in which it currently appears) but it seems like a borderline case, and I could be convinced that it is sufficient in the EV category. My real concerns are with the quality.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Looks very pretty at thumbnail, but has severe quality problems. I would not support this, and I strongly doubt it would pass today. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and agree with J Milburn. Pine (GreenPine) t 05:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Kookaburra[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2011 at 04:19:17 (UTC)

Original - Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae), Knocklofty Reserve, Hobart, Tasmania
Replacement
Reason
New picture has more detail considerably higher resolution, better lighting and a less distracting background.
Articles this image appears in
Laughing Kookaburra, Kookaburra
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg
Nominator
JJ Harrison (talk)
  • Delist and Replace — JJ Harrison (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like them both. I'm reluctant to delist the older one, the resolution doesn't seem very much higher in the new one and there's not much wrong with the old one. I don't see a problem with them both as FPs. Pinetalk 04:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The resolution of the original is reasonably good, and at nearly 4 Mega-pixels is in fact better than some of the featured pics successfully going through currently. I think the tail in the original might be slightly camouflaged, but it's still clear. We can see the talon in the original. TehGrauniad (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJ, is the newer picture of a juvenile? It's significantly whiter. It would be nice to have some clarification, and if there is indeed some significance to the different plumages, then I'd say keep and nominate the new one separately. Chick Bowen 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • New image is an adult. The old one may just have the contrast a little too high I think (I got better, calibrated monitors in the interim). JJ Harrison (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I still like the old one. It is possible that the contrast or just the softer lighting is bringing out the brown streaks more than in full light, but I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. I guess I'll remain neutral. They're both great shots, though. Chick Bowen 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's a signficance to the slightly alternative plumage, I would have no great objection to them both being featured in theory. However, if not, I do not support multiple FPs. We're not Commons- multiple images identical in all significant respects cannot all be featured. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original is a worthy FP and has a number of qualities which the proposed replacement doesn't: the background appears more natural, the feet can be seen and somehow is more smiley :) If identical in quality I always prefer landscape format for Wiki as it fits the layout better. --Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace Better composition and tail more visible --Muhammad(talk) 08:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, tending to keep. As per nom, the new one has a clearer, less busy background, in particular the branch behind the tail in the old one that sort of acts a camouflage hiding it, esp at thumb. But the old one has the characteristic kookaburra puffed out chest; I don't know what's up with the bird in the new one, but he's really flat-chested, perhaps just landed or just about to take off? If not for the chest issue I'd support a replacement, but that really puts me off. --jjron (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The original has a better background that the new one lacks, and I just prefer the old one in terms of looks. —mc10 (t/c) 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The old one has a superior aesthetic, that, as many mentioned, looks more natural. I don't find the tail at all hard to see at full size. Cowtowner (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Honeyeater female[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2011 at 10:02:23 (UTC)

Original - Crescent Honeyeater (Phylidonyris pyrrhopterus)
Replace
Reason
The image to be delisted was my first featured picture, but I think it is time to replace it with something better. It is quite likely that the replacement is the same bird, a solitary female visits my garden each winter. I used a number of remote flashes with the new image to allow me to increase the depth of field significantly over what'd normally be possible with the amount of ambient light present, an experiment for dark locations when using a hide. The new image has lower contrast, and is much higher in resolution, greatly improving the visible detail and EV. The background to the replacement is actually a painted piece of MDF, which I've made a little more yellow for next time.
Articles this image appears in
Crescent Honeyeater, Honeyeater, List of honeyeaters
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crescent Honeyeater Edit.jpg
Nominator
JJ Harrison (talk)
  • Delist & Replace — JJ Harrison (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace; higher EV in the new picture, better contrast. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Replacement image is not in either of the relevant articles. There should be a consensus on the article pages about which image is preferred before the nomination. Or, at least, the other image should be used so the the discussion here carries some weight. Cowtowner (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Put it in the crescent honeyeater article). JJ Harrison (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, sometimes you get circular arguments. Like people reverting replacements of featured images because they are featured (rather than on merit), if that makes sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. My thought would be though that if it's really a better image it'll stand on its own merit and stick. To me it's best to avoid the situation where we delist something and promote another only to have the new one go unused and us have to delist it again. Cowtowner (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I consider it unlikely in this case given that I've taken all but one of the available photos of this species. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Better than the old one. IMO, the lighting makes it look a bit artificial though --Muhammad(talk) 10:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not really comfortable with the use of an artificial background, especially one so unnatural in colour. Colin°Talk 19:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first photo wins by showing more habitat. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither is natural habitat, though the species is a common winter garden vistor. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist & Replace I don't mind having two of the same kind of featured picture, the Featured picture criteria don't have a problem with it either. But here I think the new picture is much better, the resolution's higher and there's much less noise. I don't mind having a bit of painted wood in the background, I think it gives good contrast so we can see the bird clearly. TehGrauniad (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose new The background is garish and looks fake (I thought it was photoshop until I read your explanation). I can see the quality improvement, but if this were a fresh vote, I wouldn't support either. --99of9 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Julia\talk 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crepuscular rays in ggp[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 15:19:04 (UTC)

A suitable caption for the image
Crepuscular Rays. In the middle of the image one could also see a different set of the rays coming upward from the lake. The light source for these rays is the Sun's reflection. The image was taken at Lloyd Lake in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco
Reason
The second image is used in the article "Crepuscular rays." This image is better because there are reflected rays too.
Articles this image appears in
Golden Gate Park
Previous nomination/s
Link/s to the image's original FPC nomination, and any previous delist noms
Nominator
GXK147 (talk)
  • Delist/replace — GXK147 (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current FP; better colours and lighting, more striking. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The both images are good, but the second one has many more rays including the ones that are originated from the sun reflections in the lake. That is why this image is better for the article and for FP.--GXK147 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current FP As Above. The proposed replacement is certainly no improvement. Only different. JFitch (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a wrong assessment. The new image has rays going up, and rays going down, and rays originating from a different light source. It is the best image for understanding crepuscular rays. --GXK147 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Since when have we had a rule limiting the number of FPs on a subject? Clegs (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a question of how much each one adds. Naturally, we could and do have several FPs of the moon, each showing different aspects. But we aren't likely to need five different portraits of the same pop star, nor are we likely to need three pictures of the same flower. Do all of these pictures of the rays show something different? If not, then we really can't justify them all being FPs. If they do, then we really need to ask why we shouldn't feature the one that shows all key features, or wait for a picture that does. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      "Do all of these pictures of the rays show something different? If not, then we really can't justify them all being FPs. If they do, then we really need to ask why we shouldn't feature the one that shows all key features, or wait for a picture that does." It is what I was trying to explain unsuccessfully so far. A new image has much higher EV mostly because it depicts the rays originating from a different source: the sun, and the sun's reflection. It also has rays going in a different directions from sources. It is very important for understanding crepuscular rays because for example Papa Lima Whiskey 2 believes that there are both kinds of rays "crepuscular and anticrepuscular " are present in this image File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau edit.jpg. That's why I nominated the image that illustrates rays going up and down and originating from a different source to replace the current FP because all rays in this image are crepuscular rays.--GXK147 (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are trying to have one of these pictures promoted to FP, that goes in the main section with the rest of the nominations, not the delist section. We can discuss its merits and whether to replace current FPs with this up there. This section is for delist discussions only. Clegs (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first image is FP, the second one is not. I thought that the way to replace FP image with another one is to nominate it here. Sorry, if I did it in a wrong place. Maybe you could help me to do it in the right place please? --GXK147 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other editors: What is the proper way to go about doing this? Do we nominate his candidate and nom the original for delisting, and link the two? Clegs (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I know only new nominations go to FPC. If one is to delist an FP or replace it with a potentially better picture, they are to be listed here. O.J. (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a flaw in the FP process that there is no way around this. What frequently ends up happening is two separate discussions are started, basically asking "which one should we have", and both conclude "this one", often with spurious reasoning about how they both add to the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Tsunami[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 05:52:58 (UTC)

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami striking Thailand
Reason
No longer meets minimal resolution
Articles this image appears in
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami and 6 more.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2004-tsunami.jpg
Nominator
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (for now) I really think the non-reproducibility of this image and stunning illustration of this catastrophic event outweighs it being under the size requirements, but I'm willing to be swayed by a more thorough argument. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above user. Clegs (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Runningonbrains and Clegs. O.J. (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, dynamic, striking, irreplaceable. The quality isn't super-high, but it's hardly poor. I would support this if it was nominated today, and that is the only reason I would oppose delisting. As an aside (and I appreciate that this is not an argument in this picture's favour) there are plenty of pictures less deserving of the star which would be worth targetting for delisting. I would support an attempt to clean out the galleries. J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced[edit]

Charlton Heston[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 17:23:59 (UTC)

Actor Charlton Heston at the Civil Rights March in Washington, D.C. in August 1963.
Reason
At the FPC for the original, several editors' comments noted that the image would benefit from a cleanup. I retouched the image by removing the majority of scratches and dust artifacts and slightly adjusting the lighting.
Articles this image appears in
Waiting for consensus to replace current image
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charlton Heston
Nominator
Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)
Retouched image
  • Delist and replace — Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, as original nominator. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace, nice work! J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prefer original. Detail is lost in places in the retouched version, particularly on the left side of the face (Heston's right side). Makeemlighter (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Any loss of detail is quit minimal in my opinion. Retouched version looks to be clear improvement. Jujutacular talk 02:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, retouched image is a definite improvement. Kaldari (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:CharltonHestonCivilRightsMarch1963Retouched.jpg —Maedin\talk 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Wentworth Falls, NSW, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2011 at 23:35:48 (UTC)

Proposed image for delisting
Proposed replacement
Reason
I'm proposing a delist and replace. At the time I took a panorama with a wider view but couldn't get it to stitch right. Well, I gave it another go recently and had more success. It's not perfect, and there are some aspects to the older image that I prefer, but I think the proposed replacement has better EV as it shows the waterfall more completely. There is some distortion at the top and and edges, and the sky isn't quite as vibrant due to the blending used, for example. It also appears a bit crooked but with the angle of view, it's not possible to correct completely IMO.
Articles this image appears in
Wentworth Falls (waterfall)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upper Wentworth Falls
Nominator
Ðiliff «» (Talk)
  • Delist and replace — Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace, per nom. Composition is superior without a doubt. Jujutacular talk 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace - I'm not sure I'd say the composition was superior artistically, but it's CERTAINLY more encyclopedic to see the whole thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R Jeez Dave, you were hiding 60% of the vista from us. :) upstateNYer 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace SpencerT♦C 22:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure we necessarily need to replace this...we already have an FPC of the exact same waterfall, but just a different view. I'm really not seeing enough uniqueness between both images for their to be room for both. SpencerT♦C 22:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all respect, I don't think a delist vote is compatible with this proposal. Suppose that this ends with just enough 'delist' votes but not quite enough 'replace' votes as a result of your extra delist vote. Should the image simply be delisted? No - I would argue that the other voters did so with the intent of the nomination in mind. If you feel strongly that there should be only one featured image, then you should probably start delist nomination with that explicit intent. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I agree that the wider shot has more EV, it does have some blown highlights and might be a little desaturated. If these things can be corrected I'm happy to change my vote. Spencer does have a good point regarding the second FP of the same waterfall. IMO that one should probably be delisted. But thats another story...Ottojula (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Upper Wentworth Falls 3, NSW, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antigenic shift[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 06:45:07 (UTC)

Current FP illustration of antigenic shift
Reason
This is really just a procedural nomination. The SVG version is the one in use at the articles, and it's on the Main Page right now as POTD.
Articles this image appears in
None, but the SVG is in use at Antigenic shift, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1, and Swine influenza
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:AntigenicShift HiRes.png, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antigenic Shift
Nominator
Makeemlighter (talk)
SVG version in use at articles
  • Delist and Replace — Makeemlighter (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace Also saw this on POTD and was puzzled. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R as above. Chick Bowen 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R. Ditto. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace—doubt this will be controversial, so someone might as well close this after the svg is no longer on POTD, I think? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace, even though I prefer the slightly darker colours in the PNG version. --Avenue (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace per nom. Cat-five - talk 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:AntigenicShift HiRes.svg --Jujutacular talk 12:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holbein's The Ambassadors[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 16:46:09 (UTC)

Original
Proposed replacement
Reason
Universally replaced by File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpg, a massively huge scan from the Google Art Project. Note: I don't think this was the version that was promoted. I believe that one was actually [2] (that was uploaded over this one, and then later reverted), but even so, this new scan is still superior.
Articles this image appears in
Original: none. Replacement: Ambassador, Anamorphosis, Collection of the National Gallery, London, Francis I of France, Franco-Ottoman alliance, Georges de Selve, Google Art Project, Hans Holbein the Younger, Holbein carpet, Iconography, List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger, Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting, Orientalism in early modern France, The Ambassadors (Holbein)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Ambassadors
Nominator
howcheng {chat}

Replaced with File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted[edit]

Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 00:24:26 (UTC)

Reason
Below current quality standards (noisy, fuzzy)
Articles this image appears in
Polar bear, Arctic, USS Honolulu (SSN-718), etc
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine
Nominator
Jujutacular talk
  • Delist — Jujutacular talk 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Doesn't illustrate anything particularly well... — raekyt 08:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I don't really think this has any real EV anywhere. It's interesting to look at, but that's a reason to promote on Commons, not here. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It does visibly struggle when viewed at minimum res. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Will kind of interesting, the quality and EV are lacking. SpencerT♦C 20:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the polar bears' eyes been added in paint or what??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist if only for the wierd eyes...... gazhiley.co.uk 13:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bison Skull Pile[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 22:20:53 (UTC)

Photograph from the mid-1870s of a pile of American Bison skulls waiting to be ground for fertilizer. Courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library.
Reason
As many regulars here will undoubtedly know, this image has been controversial in the past. Allow me to give a brief history. It was passed with overwhelming support in 2005, the 2007 delist nomination garnered a decent amount of attention, mostly on the side of keeping the image. The 2009 delist gathered huge attention and further momentum to delist.

The arguments that have kept this image featured in the past were the following:

  • Irreplaceable historic value, which overrides quality concerns (sometimes called the "WOW Factor")
  • Acceptable quality given the time (1870s)
  • Huge, massive, unbelievable EV. Bigger than the pile of the skulls!

All three claims are false.

On the first count, there are larger versions out there. This is a poor reproduction of the original. Take for example this uncropped scan File:Buffalo_skulls.jpg, which shows that there is considerably more detail in the original. This source also has a larger image available for a fee. Traditionally, and logically, an image is not featured because it is "the best available". If the best available doesn't clear the bar, then that image simply isn't featured.

The quality is also not acceptable given the time. Taken from the previous nomination, all of these images are from the same time period and have much higher quality.File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, File:Atlanta roundhouse ruin3.jpg, File:George Atzerodt2.jpg, File:Train station with train and coal depot by Gustave Le Gray2.jpg, File:DutchGapb.jpg. Given these alternatives, this version is pitiful.

As for the argument of great EV, its usage in all of its articles does not reflect this. It is generally just thrown into articles where it is a) not discussed b) often lost in an over-illustrated mess c) stands out in an article where it is barely relevant. It is ironic that its own EV as a massive pile of skulls is greatly diminished by its small size. It would be much more impactful if more, nay, any detail was visible.

Full disclosure, I voted to keep last time around. My views have changed. I doubt this would pass today.

Articles this image appears in
American Bison, Bison hunting, American Old West, Environmental racism, Plains Indians, Frontier Strip, Endangered Species, Conservation in the United States, Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant
Previous nomination/s
2005 Nomination, Failed 2007 Delist, Failed 2009 Delist
Nominator
Cowtowner (talk)
  • Delist — Cowtowner (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I think this is actually simpler than Cowtowner's admirably exhaustive account suggests. The print he links to is of good enough quality to get a much better scan from it than this one. So--anyone willing to pay the DPL 50 bucks for a pro-quality scan? Chick Bowen 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • $15, no need to pay them commercial use tax for a public domain image. — raekyt 14:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though, if you pay the $15, then upload it as PD, they might be more wary of any other images we might like scanned in the future. I'd throw in $5, but won't have the chance to fix my paypal for the better part of a month. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I checked into acquiring the image and they make you sign this form before you get the image, would signing that form put you at legal risk for a public domain image? — raekyt 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, resolution far too low. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as in 2009. --Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, too small even for a historical image. --Avenue (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It's time for this to go. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep / Delist and replace If there's a better version that we could be using then than have this be a delist and replace nomination but it doesn't make sense to say that there is a better version without offering to do a delist and replace. If someone is willing to do that then this is a delist and replace opinion. If there's an issue of licensing on the other hand then give that as the reason and have that be the reason to delist. The reasoning for delisting should be clear, to the point, and stand up to scrutiny which this seems to fail on all counts. Cat-five - talk 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's true. The reason to delist is that it's too small and there is good reason to believe this scan is not as sharp as the original image. Those are very valid reasons. We are speculating about whether it is possible, for a fee or with some trouble, to get a better one, but to me, that possibility of a better image seems separate from the question of whether this particular image should be listed. Chick Bowen 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the issue of whether a replacement can be found should be resolved before this delist nomination is closed. We'd do the same if this was a nomination instead of a delist nomination no matter what the reasoning even if that meant holding it for awhile after the voting window. That's not to say that we need to treat list and delist nominations exactly the same but as I've said in the past there seems to be an undue urgency by a lot of people on FPC to delist images. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interior of Old Saint Paul's, Wellington[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 05:32:30 (UTC)

HDR image of Old Saint Paul's church, New Zealand
Reason
Very small (0.7 Mpix), lack of detail, weak composition, not best example of HDR. Passed on the limit in 2006, but is much below current standard.
Articles this image appears in
Old St. Paul's, Wellington, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Tone mapping
Previous nomination/s
Nomination 2006
Nominator
Elekhh (talk)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Sam Wants a Better Scan[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 14:15:09 (UTC)

Uncle Sam Wants You, a famous WWI recruitment poster
Reason
Lots of ugly stains, this was listed in 2006 but the image isn't actually the one promoted due to a later upload (from an unknown source) - and the promoted one wouldn't be suitable for FP today either, due to small size and being a detail, not the whole image. Restoration of the LoC scans is completely possible. This particular copy is slightly bigger, but heavily JPEG artefacted, which comes out if you try to restore it (I poked at it a bit). Unfortunately, I've sworn off Commons, but I can give an idea of what should be possible: http://www.deviantart.com/download/185266146/i_want_you_for_u_s__army_rst__n_by_adamcuerden-d32aw9u.png

Legal notice: I do not release that last link into the public domain, and live in Britain, so I have a sweat-of-brow copyright on the extensive restoration. It IS CC-by licensed, though I'd prefer it not be on Commons. Don't mind if it's uploaded to en-wiki, though. Information page is here.

Articles this image appears in
Propaganda, James Montgomery Flagg, Gesture, National personification, Scottish American (why?), Military recruitment, Lord Kitchener Wants You, Uncle Sam
Previous nomination/s
As mentioned above, this has never actually gone through FPC, as it's a new version uploaded in 2008, when the FPC ran in 2006.
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Yeah, per exhaustive nom. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. --Avenue (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info commons has a different opinion: Commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:I_want_you_for_U.S._Army_3b48465u_edit.jpg regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does Commons opposing a superior image to this mean this inferior one shouldn't be delisted? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since quality is the only real criteria on commons vs quality and EV on enwiki if the only issue is the quality of the image then I'd say that what commons users think can be quite relevant although by no means should we solely base our decisions on theirs. Cat-five - talk 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this isn't featured on Commons. So jhow does it not being featured on Commons mean that Commons have a different opinion, and therefore we should keep? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep find a restored version and I'd be more than happy to support delisting this image to replace it. Cat-five - talk 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist that was not my point adam. i support your delisting and must admit that i'm not completely happy with the source of my restoration either. if looking at the source of the current fp, you'll notice that this image has a different one. a rescan by the loc or another source could do the trick. regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Starry Night[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 18:56:04 (UTC)

Original featured version
Version from the Google Art Project. Warning most browsers will fail to open this at full res. Use the download button on Commons or check out the zoomify version on the Google Art Project.
Reason
Since February 8, the ultra-high-res version of The Starry Night from the Google Art Project has been in place at The Starry Night. I'm not an art guru, but the colors appear to me to be more accurate than the image we currently have featured here. The Google version is cropped closer, but does not appear to leave out anything of importance.
Articles this image appears in
The Starry Night
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Starry Night
Nominator
Jujutacular talk
  • Delist and replace — Jujutacular talk 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This raises an interesting question about the purpose of FPs and images on Wikipedia in general. How useful is a 96 MB image? To many of our readers, it's not. Their browsers will crash when they try to open it (the warning is too far down the page). People probably don't care to save such a large image to their computer, and it's not at all easy or convenient to locate a smaller version. I remember that Durova used to include a smaller "courtesy" version for users with slower connections, but I'm not sure that it was visible enough either. Obviously, we can't keep this image if it's not used in an article, but I'm not so sure we should replace it. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (i.e., no replace). I've been wondering when this would come up. The Google Art Project is based on zooming--you start with a view of the galleries (which is good, because it reminds people where the paintings are located, which we should but often don't), and then can zoom in to extremely small details. That's not the function of FPs, which are meant to be considered as entire images. So I'm opposed to this. Chick Bowen 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Since I am the only "Keep" vote, I will add delist without replacement as second option. Chick Bowen 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
    • I understand your thoughts, but nevertheless we have an issue to deal with: the existing FP is not used in the primary article. Perhaps we could reduce the size of the Google version, replace it in the article (and others), link the large version of the image, and mark the reduced resolution version as FP? Jujutacular talk 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to note that we have the {{FPlowres}} template available that could be used in this situation. Jujutacular talk 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a fuss about it, at the articles and at Commons. It seems to me ridiculous to have the lead image in an article be one that effectively can't be opened in the browser. I think these images violate the principles of our image policy and are outside the project scope at Commons. But perhaps there's consensus for the opposite view; I don't know. Chick Bowen 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I agree. I'd like to see a discussion of this somewhere, at least. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{FPlowres}} is nice but has the same problem: do casual readers know it exists? When something like this comes up on the Main Page, a lot of people are going to have their browsers crash. In principle, I think we should feature the best version of an image; I just have trouble coming to terms with a nearly 100 MB FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do still think the colors on the Google version are better. We could scale it down to around 40 MB so that the majority of users could still open it, while still getting a lot of the amazing details. Jujutacular talk 00:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems reasonable. I guess we might as well just feature what's used in the article. My concern is less a FP concern than an overall Wikipedia concern. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's not used in the article, so it can't be an FP. I'm not sure about replacing yet, but if consensus heads that way, I won't mind. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace I'm not particularly comfortable with a 100mb FP but I'd rather have this delisted and replaced than just be another victim of the delist by default because people can't make up on their minds on replacing the image like what happened with the Panorama of Edo delist. Cat-five - talk 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would uploading (if possible) and nomating the 3.4gig version be considered a WP:POINT violation? If Wikipedia survived it, that woud be an interesting way to start the discussion on ultra large images. Cat-five - talk 02:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delist and replace. The existing FP isn't used in the painting's article, and we should feature the best version we can handle. Large size is not really a problem IMO. Most people who click though will just look at the thumbnail on the image page, and not go any further. For those who want more detail, the image page has links to interactive image viewers and a download button with links to smaller sizes. We could upload a smaller version and tag it with {{FPlowres}} too. --Avenue (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace anyone interested in a smaller file (for webuse or else) could download it on commons via the "download all sizes" menu. after all print solutions require the highest resolution and quality available. regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R, so long as lower resolution copies are provided. Cowtowner (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, do not replace: The Google version has the edges cut off. 99% of a painting isn't enough. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone confirm this? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a little complicated, because Van Gogh did not paint to the edge of the canvas, and the edge of the painted portion is not straight. You can see this very clearly in the currently featured version: at the top left he painted right to the edge, but in the middle left he left what looks like about half an inch of blank canvas. Google dealt with this by cropping it to where the paint ends in the middle, rather than the edge of the canvas. I'm inclined to agree with Adam that Google's way doesn't give the most accurate perspective of what the actual canvas looks like. Chick Bowen 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R This is a no-brainer for me, bigger is better. Also I thought we dealt with this before, we have warnings within the file description page and a link to a zoomify hosted on the tool server for the image in the warning for people to view in their browsers if they wish. Personally I think people don't just accedently click an image on the front page then click the larger preview image again too often by mistake so I don't think that should even be something to worry about. — raekyt 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted —Maedin\talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The consistent theme is that the current FP ought to be delisted. The replacement votes (of which there are five) don't address the issue of the cut-off painting, and two of those votes are "discounted" (one for timing and the other for its dependence on lower resolution copies (which haven't been provided yet as far as I know)). I believe the subject is sufficiently thorny and involved that the promotion of the 100 MB version (or a lower resolution/smaller file size copy of it) should be decided in a new nomination and therefore given appropriate attention. Maedin\talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Bay Area Skyline Blvd[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 08:16:25 (UTC)

Panorama of Skyline Boulevard in winter.
Panorama of Skyline Boulevard in summer.
Reason
Insufficient resolution by modern standards. Also, the sky is pretty bad in the first image.
Articles this image appears in
none
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco Bay Area Skyline Blvd.jpg
Nominator
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot air balloon[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 03:00:24 (UTC)

Hot air balloon in Turkey
Reason
Too small and low quality.
Articles this image appears in
Hot air ballooning
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2004#Hot_Air_Balloon_Inflation
Nominator
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Control-of-stomach-acid-sec.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 10:16:10 (UTC)

Diagram summarising control of stomach acid secretion
Reason
I am not convinced that this diagram, while clearly very useful, is a great choice as a featured picture. I do not feel that it would pass at FPC today for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not in SVG format, which would be more that suitable. Secondly, the diagram is covered in somewhat random capitalisation- "Blood Circulation"? "Lumen of Body"? And so on. Thirdly, it is unreferenced; I know a lot of people prefer to see references for diagrams such as this. When placed side-by-side with other diagrams in the category (for instance, File:Circulatory System en.svg, File:Steroidogenesis.svg or File:Complete neuron cell diagram en.svg), it is not in the same league.
Articles this image appears in
Cholecystokinin, Delta cell, Enterochromaffin-like cell, G cell, Gastric acid, Gastrin, Parietal cell, Somatostatin
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2004#Diagram summarising control of stomach acid secretion, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Control-of-stomach-acid-sec.png
Nominator
Prisonblues (talk)
  • Delist — J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delist. It's not bad, but I guess it wouldn't pass today. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Yeah, OK, although it's pretty well used after all these years, it's very diagrammatic compared to other illustrations, and looks like there's no chance of getting the creator to update it as he appears to have been gone for several years. I see on his talkpage at least one message suggesting this contains an error/s as well. --jjron (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom and jjron. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main arguments about titles and format seem like easy things to fix. I think rather than delisting if someone would step up and fix those things a D & R would be the better choice. Didn't there use to be a page for bringing to light pictures that needed work? Cat-five - talk 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing this to svg will not be easy- it'll probably have to be completely redrawn. There's also the problem of the complete lack of visual interest and the possibility of errors. If someone is willing to do the work, great, but this should be delisted in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Cat-five - talk 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Jujutacular talk 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rila 7 lakes circus panorama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 18:52:42 (UTC)

Panoramic photo of the Seven Rila Lakes in the Rila mountains of Bulgaria
Reason
Numerous obvious cloning artifacts, as shown in this picture. Image quality is also not great, and I don't like the fact that most of the picture is in the shade.
Articles this image appears in
Glacial lake, Lake, List of lakes in Bulgaria, Rila, Seven Rila Lakes
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seven Rila Lakes panorama
Nominator
NotFromUtrecht (talk)
  • Delist — NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this one definitely needs to be rethought, as evidenced by the original nomination, which is a bit confused with edits coming in during it, and has some significant questions raised after the close. The clone job above and to the left of the middle lake is particularly annoying to me, and I'd say delist. Chick Bowen 19:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, what am I looking at here? J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many cloning artifacts in the image (which are detailed in the image on the German Wikipedia which I linked to), which in my view make this unworthy of FP status because the image is not of a high technical standard. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are a couple of different issues. There are places, like the one I mentioned above, where the tire-tread-like marks from the cloning tool are visible. There are also places, such as in the clouds and at the bottom right, in which a portion of the image actually appears twice. Chick Bowen 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'd even be in favor of expediting this delist since the edits to this image make it absolutely inappropriate to be an FP. Cat-five - talk 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Jujutacular talk 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahameru volcano[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 17:48:14 (UTC)

An eruption plume rising over Semeru, with Mount Bromo(?) in the foreground (It is not clear from the category description which mountains are depicted.)
Reason
The image was promoted in 2004 (currently listed under 'Places: Landscapes') and the featured picture criteria have changed since then. Specifically, the image does not meet criteria 1 and 3. The image is grainy and seems to have JPEG artifacts (near the boundary between the sky and the mountainside). In addition, the lighting is such that the bottom half of the image is overly dark and, thus, large areas of the mountains contain virtually no visible detail. The image is informative and encyclopedic, but I do not think it continues to be "among Wikipedia's best work"; we do, by the way, have at least two other featured pictures (see here) which show eruption columns.
Articles this image appears in
Indonesia, List of volcanoes in Indonesia, Semeru, Snowball Earth, West African craton
Previous nomination/s
Original FPC nomination (2004)
Nominator
-- Black Falcon (talk)
  • Delist — -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Low quality and small file size. Unclear EV. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It was fine that it was an FP once, but standards have gone up. FS will go through the same thing eventually. I think it is good actually. If we had started with the too high standard would have never gotten here. But now that we are, may as well delist. That and I can't see much of the plume and the other mountains in pic identification is unclear.TCO (reviews needed) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Low quality. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per quality concerns. Jujutacular talk 04:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per previous reviewers. Quality is far too low. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2011 at 22:21:51 (UTC)

Inaccurate rendering of a 1939 poster
Reason
This is an inaccurate, faithless rendering of a 1939 poster. I have (so far) four main complaints: 1) The font weight seems just a little too much. 2) The letter spacing is completely wrong - much too close together. 3) The sentence spacing is too tight. 4) The colour is completely wrong; the original is not a dayglo red. These things being the case - certainly the last three - it just is not the same as the original. On what basis are we featuring something which is (at least for me) a travesty of the original?
Articles this image appears in
Keep Calm and Carry On
Previous nomination/s
Promoted, Earlier, not promoted
Nominator
Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Delist — Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Presented with the evidence here i would have to agree. JFitch (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The original, if available, would be perfectly appropriate, some else's inaccurate interpretation of it is certainly not. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist After comparing to the original (source) and overlaying the two in photoshop, it becomes pretty clear that this recreation is not accurate at all. The dimensions is different, the layout is different, the crown is different.. it's NOT an exact recreation of the original poster, at least not the originals I see on the internet. See below the two examples, I've stretched and fixed the prospective of the shot of the original to be the same proportions as the remade one, but even when you do that, the two are not anywhere near identical. One big flaw is the size and position of the crown, along with size and spacing of the lines and letters. Font faces might also not be identical. — raekyt 07:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the wrong place - take it to the graphics lab! Samsara (FA • FP) 22:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi there, this is Mononomic, the creator of this image. This originally was a task I picked up from the Graphic Lab, so I feel somewhat at fault for the accusations made here. I'll address the complaints one by one.
Firstly, the vector image was traced in Illustrator from one of the higher-resolution images out of the countless sources from the Internet (copyright has long expired). The idea of having one "original" is somewhat flawed: the original is in a glass case somewhere in England; no "original" can exist in digital form, only close representations of that image. I can guarantee that it matches pixel-perfect to a specific source image, but people's different photographs (angles, lenses, lighting) are bound to produce totally different images that only approximate the original work. As for the font, the sentence spacing and text weight is not a "font face" as some have mentioned: many fonts are similar to the type used here, but historians have agreed that the type was set by hand for this design and is thus impossible to reproduce with a commercial font. As for the color concerns, even the original poster—the one printed by the Ministry of Information—has undergone color shifts over time due to fading, etc. and I picked something close. Even so, a ten-second fix in Illustrator could fix the color issue without having to break out the mob and delist this from Featured status.
It seems that my work is seen "faithless" depiction of a poster, a "travesty" perhaps. If you'd like, I'd be happy to retrace the poster from a new "original" that is deemed to be more of an accurate representation of the true original. I believe that presenting this historical object in vector (SVG) format emphasizes the graphic qualities of the original artwork, instead of the photographer's ability to take a picture of the poster which may or may not be an original. By distilling an iconic image such as this one into vector format, we are providing a professional and accurate depiction of the fundamental intent and message of the poster.
I hope this clears some things up. I'll be checking back to see how it progresses. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide the source of the image you used to trace from? There's TONS of remade versions of this floating on the internet, from new products, t-shirts, everything. The link above is a photograph of a real original poster (at some book store that found a copy and has it on the wall), it's pretty high resolution, just not a straight on shot, so it needs fixed in Photoshop before you can trace. I have SIGNIFICANT experience in Photoshop and illustrator (10 years working in graphic design from newspapers to magazines) so I'm not a total noob here. I have a strong feeling that either (a) there are multiple versions of this that the government put out, which is possible, poster making in that time wasn't really an exact process and there was variation between the versions. It's probably stenciled and hand painted posters, if I had to guess. All I can say is the poster I compared it too, it is not an accurate match to it, the front spacing is off, the line spacing is off, and the crown is the wrong size and not in the same position. I'm not 100% sure that you didn't accurately retrace another version of the poster, and from what I know of poster making of the period it's very possible that there is wide variation in each poster. But please show us what you traced so we can decide from that? — raekyt 04:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it was this based on my notes about the original file, but I didn't write down the exact link so I can't be 100% sure. —Mono·nomic 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely not an image of an original poster, that's someone's recreation of it. From our comparisons with original posters there is some fairly significant differences in the typeface and formatting. It can probably be resolved, but as it stands I'm still sticking to delisting until theses issues are resolved. — raekyt 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept that Mononomic's recreation is a faithful copy of whatever he/she copied it from, but as observed here and elsewhere, it is not a copy of the original. That makes it faithless. And the colour is a complete and utter travesty. Sorry dude, but even accounting for colour shift arising out of the passage of time, the original was never a dayglo gloss red. In the event that you do recreate it and wish it to be featured, you need to make a much better colour choice than you did this time around. I don't know how you create a matt orangy-red in photoshop, but I can advise that it is not a uniform d00000 (which would be what? Some sort of primary red colour?).
Your comments on the "mob" are not helpful. The fact is that by the lottery of these things, the photo came up as prospective picture of the day. That was the point at which I became aware that it was featured; the image had been pissing me off for some time previously - vide my recaptioning in September. It's clear to me that the original listing was flawed, and the correct thing is to delist, pending an improvement such that a recreation can be considered for a new listing. The incorrect thing is to keep a flawed image listed, on the off chance that an improvement can be made. I'm sorry, but not very surprised, that you are now a bit pissed off. But that's what happens when you pass off a flawed copy as an original, even if you're unaware that that is what you're doing. --09:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)
  • I understand your concerns. I'll see if I can trace a new poster based on the image raeky provided that would be more suitable. I believe FP delists have 14 days from the original nomination until a verdict is reached, no? We'll see what I can get done by then. If you can find another source image that would be more suitable, please let me know. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your reaction to all of this. I suspect in your position I'd have succumbed to the temptation to say say "sod it" or "bugger them" and walked away from it all. So you have my vote for red poster wikipedian of the year; if that helps. I don't know of any other online sources of the poster, but point you at the final comment of the first thread on the KC&CO talk page Talk:Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On#Poster_shows_modern_recreation.2C_not_original which (assuming good faith) has a link to a scan of the original. Right now, possibly related to the ongoing trade mark dispute, Barter Books has taken down their original copy. I'll see if I can find out where it is and get a photo of it. Finally, I wouldn't worry about whether or not this instance is delisted. If you come up with a faithful version, you'll get widespread support - including mine. Time is not of the essence; accuracy is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and Replace Lets fix it rather than delist it. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a replacement option available, nothing that has been linked would pass as a FP with the evidence presented here. JFitch (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a snap of the original poster Image:Keep Calm And Carry On - Original poster - Barter Books - 17-Oct-2011.jpg and have swapped out the SVG from the article page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have our replacement candidate. Does somebody want to take this on or do we have to bring it to the graphics lab? upstateNYer 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't support that as a replacement, it has reflections from the glass frame and the skewing isn't exactly right. — raekyt 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; it's not & never will be a candidate for a FP. Meanwhile I've started a discussion on the KC&CO talk page as to whether we'd prefer a flawed photo of a shiny synthetic replacement. Contributions welcomed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or abort nom as per previous comment that this is the wrong channel for raising the complaint. I've now made a minimal fix to the file, which is to put the crown symbol in the same relation with the "KEEP" text as is found in Tagishsimon's uploaded image. I'm under no illusion that this puts things right, but I'm confident that others will build on my work to make it so. Have at it! Samsara (FA • FP) 11:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. The colour is still all wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that was relevant to my previous statement, but I'll just point out that there seems to be no consensus yet on what the colour should be. I should emphasise that I in no way volunteer to be your foil for this issue. If you want to debate the merits of showing the colours as faded vs. what they would have looked like in the day, please find someone else who has that sort of expertise. Samsara (FA • FP) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me spell it out, Bubba. You're recommending that the nomination be aborted and, if I understand you, that we keep the featured status. I disagree, because I think the colour is wrong. I'm not seeking to make you a foil for this issue. I'm merely disagreeing with your assertion that this should be a featured picture. That's the sort of discussion we tend to conduct in delist pages such as this. I note that at least a couple of people who have seen original versions of the poster disagree with the throbbing red of this image. I accept that you do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on colour, and that's fine. But getting your panties in a bunch as you have just done when what seems to be legitimate opposition to your view is expressed, is less fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The apparent resolution of the issue, although I'm somewhat surprised at the colour "compromise" that Tagishsimon seems to have jumped to, after characterising the colour of the current FP as "dayglo red" and insisting that this was the wrong colour. I did look up dayglo red and was left wondering if any of this debatering had actually got us anywhere. I believe an impartial analysis of whether Stuart Manley's "folded poster at the bottom of a box of random books he'd bought at auction" is in any way authentic or even faithful is still outstanding. Meanwhile, someone else has picked up the story. Perhaps someone has the time to read the thesis cited therein, as I am suspicious of the journalist's synopsis thereof (not that there isn't plenty else to be suspicious of...). Samsara (FA • FP) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Bones... or is it?[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2011 at 14:24:16 (UTC)

Ebony Bones?
Reason
Almost definite misidentification (see previous discussion); used in no articles used in one article, with the need to evaluate its EV. Something funky is going on with the image as it shows no transclusions (yet we have at least 3).
Articles this image appears in
Backing vocalistNone
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ebony Thomas
Nominator
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unused is no good. If we could get a name for this person, and confirmation that she works for Thomas, would it be of use in backing vocalist (which has no images, though it also needs a lot of work)? Since I'd never heard of the person this was thought to be, I find myself somewhat indifferent to the revelation that it isn't she. Chick Bowen 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... although the individual person's name would be difficult to ascertain, the backing vocalists for Thomas are called the Wives. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the question is if the EV is high enough now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns below, but personally I'd be happy to let it stand for now, and maybe revisit it if we don't get more info. It's a terrific shot I think. Chick Bowen 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not a lot of EV for Backup singer, since it's not clear from this photo that she is one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Quite a shame, it's a good pic. Jujutacular talk 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Not of a notable person, and questionable EV at best for "backup singer." Clegs (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as above. A shame. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Other[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2011&oldid=699231181"