Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg

Rolling Thunder Cloud[edit]

A rolling thunderstorm (Cumulonimbus arcus)

**Alt 1** 1,578 × 1,048 (slightly more reddish)

Reason: This image doesn't seem to be even close to any featured quality anymore. Valuable and encyclopedic surely, because I have not seen images that capture the roll quite as dramatic as this image does with it's angle, but definitely no longer up to the current standards.
Previous nomination/s

Nominator: —TheDJ (talk • contribs)

Delist — —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have the time before to check for previous listings, but I just did, and it sure is a contentious one. Found 4 previous nominations for delist. I think it is obvious that it is a very impressive image that would be hard to reproduce, and I think it would be great for Wikipedia:Valued pictures, and above all, I really am no big supporter of delisting older FP images in general, but...... I still support my delist nomination, partly due to the existence of VPICS now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. And it happens not to be a rolling thunder cloud, but a shelf cloud. --Dschwen 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Low resolution, poor quality, indifferent composition. Time3000 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The passage of time suggests that this image is not easily reproducible. It also seems to be correctly labelled in all but the file name (and the technical reasons for that seem to persist, on Commons). It was already not up to "standards" at previous three nominations, so I'd hope that someone can explain what's changed to deserve changing the consensus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Time --Muhammad(talk) 07:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — actually it does meet the current standards: "Exceptions to this rule [min. 1000px] may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired" — I'd say this image fits this criteria. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it does. I know it isn't made very clear, but I would interpret it to refer only to subjects that one could not aquire higher resolution images of, not to individual images. In other words, we might not be able to get a higher resolution image of this specific picture, but we can find another similar photo of the subject in higher resolution. That means it is not unique and therefore not covered by that caviat IMO. If nobody objects, it is probably worth changing the wording to reflect this nuance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per nom. That exception doesn't apply here - this is eminently reproducible. These storms are not one-off events, or consigned to history. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say, that WP:FPC does not lower the bar simply because something is rare. It needs to be significantly so, and no evidence has been provided that these are (no shots is not that evidence - there are plenty of things we only have one shot of on Wikimedia projects) Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- And oppose possible replacement versions. Neither is of FPC standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diego_pmc --Avala (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cool, but far too small. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist To small and very replaceable. upstate NYer 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I find this image to be an exceptionally striking image of a shelf cloud especially when compared to all of the other images in the Wikipedia article. Also, doing a google image search came up with few examples that can compare to the one we have. I would be happy to delist for something better and I understand that something that reproducible in nature doesn't come to the same level as our reason for keeping File:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png featured which is why I put 'weak' but I think the same general rule of rarity applies. gren グレン 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until we have better. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that we do have better, in this Featured Picture here - File:Shelf cloud pano oct07 ver4.jpg. They both illustrate arcus shelf clouds, just in slightly different lighting (and the second appears to be carrying more rain). Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And we don´t have to keep a bad one just to find a new version. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that no version of even half-comparible quality - the suggested replacement in no way illustrates the phenomena as well - is a good sign that we should ignore the minor technical flaws, as an irreplacable image. If it can be demonstrated this is not irreplacable, we can remove it then. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that demonstration is necessary - it is self-evident that it is replaceable given that it is not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Why should we have different standards for existing FPs than we have for new ones? It doesn't make any sense to. Diliff … (Talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I kind of semi-agree with both. Being remplaceable or not is not part of the criteria, however, a non-remplaceable one may hold a strong value for that, so I think in those cases is up to consensus. But I still oppose in this case because of the low resolution and artifacting (which I consider to be stronger than the uniquity (in this case)). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everyone reading or participating in this discuccions should have a look at Arcus cloud. Arcus clouds are very often thunder clouds. There's confusion here, where it seems that people thing that an arcus cloud being a thunder cloud is a rare thing. It is not. Not only that, arcus shelf clouds happen all the time. We not only have more than one picture of an arcus shelf cloud, we have two featured pictures. If that is 'not replaceable', then every image on Wikipedia is 'not replaceable. I don't think the argument is even weakly true. A high quality image of a Morning glory cloud on the other hand... Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I don't agree with the 'keep until we have better' argument at all. We have standards because they are our standards. The exception has always been historical images where there is absolutely no chance that a better image will ever be available, simply because it won't happen again. For all other images, I don't see why we should wait. If it no longer meets the standards, it is not FP quality. End of story. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I added two versions of this image that I found on Commons. The resolution is a lot higher, but the color balance is a little different in alt 1. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alternates are certainly ... bigger. But other than in size, I think they're inferior to the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Low resolution for the original, and image noise for the alts. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think due to the striking and fairly rare cloud formation replacing this image would be difficult if not impossible. Cloud formations like this are not common. The fact that it has survived 5 delisting attempts and not been removed yet testifies that this kind of image is not easily replaced and has strong value. Yes it's very poor quality and doesn't match current standards which is a shame. But it still remains a striking image of that type of cloud system. Unless a better image that illustrates that in the same way comes arround it should stay in my opinion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: We can choose to keep or promote images based on their value alone; until that ethos is adopted here, its expression with regards to this picture is contrary to the standards of our FP library. I do not find this image to be eligible for a suspension of our usual criteria. Maedin\^talk 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those alternates are not truly in higher resolution- they just stretch the original image, which actually makes the full picture look terrible. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: In addition poor resolution, it has jpeg compression artifacts. These are quite noticeable on the brown building. Keeping this would be a little bit insulting to the other images we have featured. I also think that both alternate versions are horrible. Reguiieee (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist per my comments in the previous delist nomination. It's not like we're going to delete the image so as to "keep [it] until we have better", it's just far from the modern technical understanding of a featured picture. Todor →Bozhinov 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted - and if I may indulge in a small elegy, regretfully so, as this is one of may favourite FPs and I have voted to Keep on several previous occasions. However it seems that like a loved pet who you finally decide to have put down, the time for this has come, and it too must be put out of its misery, so to speak. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]