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.

John Edwards

Reason

Image is hopelessly noisy, basically NOTHING is in focus. Way oversampled also. Half of him is coverered in razor-sharp shadows (which is the only thing sharp in this pic). The american flag in the background is barely identifiable as such- the white balance leaves its 50 (52 if you count the strangely double-image ones) blots and long smudges light and dull. The composition is terrible; he's cut off on the left and theres a giant gap between the end of his arm and the right of the image (where his fingers end nobody knows because his overexposed fingertips fade right into the grey of a flag stripe). The sinkers are: the worst-case lighting conditions and the focus on the giant blur that's probably a microphone.

Nominator

ffroth

• Delist — ffroth 03:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep only been and FP for 4 months - I don't think the standards have changed significantly since it was promoted. de Bivort 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it should never have been promoted in the first place :[ The standards haven't changed, but the image doesn't satisfy the standards of 4 months ago. --ffroth 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Not particularly encyclopedic and the lighting is what led me to oppose in the original nom. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-03 14:50Z
• Delist Lighting is the big drawback; for a politician there must be better photos out there and plenty of chances to get a better shot. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can live with motion blur on the hands. The head is in reasonable focus. I might be inclined to delist to avoid systemic bias in the elections, but unfortunately, that's not one of our criteria. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I don't mind the out-of-focus flag background, it's a nice effect and perfectly recognizable. The entire composition is excellent. I just don't like the way the light is falling across his face. As I said in my original oppose, there should be a lot of public domain photos of candidates to choose from. --Bridgecross (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree with all of the nominator's points and the exaggerated tone of them in particular. Lighting, focus and composition are perfectly fine and the rather high contrast (which amounts to the only legitimate niggle, IMO) is way less important a factor here than the power of the image itself. --mikaul^talk 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The composition is just fine as it is, and the quality is pertty good (full ack mikaul!). --Dschwen 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any problems with this, I don't understand the what the nominator means by 'way oversampled' this was taken with a 6.3 megapixel DSLR, considering the resolution, it was likely downsampled or cropped, there isn't any evidence of interpolation, the noise is acceptable Thisglad (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think its fairly dynamic and the light isn't terrible. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think ffroth might need a lie down - his face, hair and microphone, while not perfectly in focus, are very very close. "the giant blur that's probably a microphone" - to be honest, WTF? This is a reasonable picture. To be honest, we're not trying to accurately illustrate the entirety of John Edwards' body with this image, so I doubt that his legs and right elbow are going to add much to picture, especially as they're clad in a plain blue tracksuit. I can also quite clearly see the all of the ends of his fingers. Tried using a different monitor, ffroth? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I echo the sentiment of some of the folks above that the tone of the delist nom was inappropriate, bordering on UNCIVIL. Matt Deres (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above. Almost borders on trolling, I'd say... --Janke | Talk 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

Reason

I feel that the composition isn't really good enough for FP, and the quality doesn't seem good enough either: blurry, low detail. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk

• Delist — -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Voted almost unanimous keep on June 25th last year, when this larger version was uploaded. Even though it has faults, it's unique enough to keep as a FP. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think the standards have changed much since June 25th or even since the original nom. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-08 13:59Z
• Keep per above. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep composition is very good, considering the rarity of this event. Same goes for quality. This is one of the more striking pictures I have seen of a wildfire. Clegs (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep great composition, plus drama! Wildlife huddled in a stream to escape surrounding fire. As for the focus; I cut a little slack for shooting a wildfire at night. I doubt there was a tripod handy. --Bridgecross (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rare and unique shot. No higher res version can be found. Jumping cheese 01:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hasn't this been an attempted delist several times for this image? Still meets FP criteria enough to be a featured picture, a great shot, very good composition. Cat-five - talk 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looked up the answer to my own question, as far as I can find the original was put up for delisting and replaced with teh hi-res which is what's up for delisting now for essentially the same reasons the original was put up for delisting. Cat-five - talk 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Awesome image, besides being encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This image has won prizes outside of WP and has become one of the most recognisable wildlife images in the world. That is, it has become notable in its own right, not just for its information content. Let me write a stub about it. Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --jjron (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Ghetto Josef Bloesche-edit1

Reason

Deleted at COM:DEL. Already delisted. MER-C 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I re-uploaded to en-WP. This is PD in the U.S., but is ineligible for hosting at Commons. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigating further, this seems to have been re-uploaded by someone else as Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06.jpg. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to this being refeatured? It seems a little small... MER-C 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Fir0002 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep. Grumble, grumble I was going to say delist and renominate, but when I looked at it fullsize I seem to remember supporting the original nomination (I don't guess anyone can easily find the link to that?). So keep, provided Howcheng (or someone) can confirm that this is basically the same as the version that was originally promoted; if not I think it should be delisted and renominated. --jjron (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the same version that was originally promoted. I am an admin on Commons, so I was able to view the deleted file, which I then downloaded and reuploaded locally. The version that has been uploaded by someone else will probably need to be deleted from Commons, since it's not PD in its home country (Germany). howcheng {chat} 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Too historically valuable not to keep --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delistbecause it doesn't meet the minimum size requirements, and the subject is not dynamic enough to overcome that. Keep. Thanks for the hi-res version. Not to be a nit-pick or anything, but it could do with some clean-up. I can't do it, though. But I think that it is now good enough for an FP. Clegs (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a little boy about to be shot dead after the warsaw ghetto uprising, id say it was plenty dynamic, perhaps a little too much so
• Delist as per Clegs. Thingg (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, find me a better shot of the subject and prove to me that this is not the best WP has to offer and I'll change to delist but until then people have to stop giving size higher priority than the best to offer principle. Cat-five - talk 08:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Clegs. Thisglad (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of the most famous photos of the second World War. Much effort have been made to identify the people in the photo. It's one of those rare documentary photographs with a "perfect" composition (YMMV). A resolution that meets the FP requirement would be better, but "exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images" Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria. Zarniwoot (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI... This really is a famous photo. I've seen it in many Holocaust books and websites. You can buy posters of the photo on one site. Some sources claim that he boy is Tsvi Nussbaum, but the Wikipedia article suggets that he might not be. --User101010 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've written to the site where this photo comes from to request that they release a small number of high resolution public domain images for Wikipedia, and offered to provide full credit and an outgoing link to their site in return. Also, I've been searching the Library of Congress for other free images of the Holocaust. Haven't found any yet. I'd welcome other leads and sources for material on this very important subject. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image was contained in a report compiled by SS commander Jürgen Stroop who was in charge of the Nazi troops during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It was seized by the U.S. government after the war and used as evidence during the Nuremberg Trials against him. It's thus public domain in the U.S. by virtue of being seized enemy property. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The original ( the only one existing copy) of Jürgen Stroop report was transferred to the property of Polish State by US- Army authorities , just after Nuremberg Trials.This original is now in property of Institute for National Rememberance in Warsaw (Poland). The first publication of all photos from this document was made in Poland in 1946. The author of all photos is unknown - and for the reason he was a member of Stroop commando ( with nationality unknown - it was Germans, Latvians, Russians, Ukrainians) he is from the beginning in prosecution for participating in genocide and for this reason he will never in fact be disclosed personally.

According to Berne Convention art. 5. [1] in any case of anonymous works the law, shall to be in effect is the law of country of the first publication of photo.

For the reason - the country of publishing is Poland , the regulations of Polish copyright law are in effect. See Template:PD:Polish in Commons

Best regards: Andros64 (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • FYI, I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo:Image:26543.JPG.
• Keep as high resolution version. Image size is no longer an issue. Durova^Charge! 07:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just for the record, I found the original nomination here. It's clearly a Keep (the only reasons for delist were to do with size, but that's now not an issue), but it's no longer in any articles - does anyone know what it was in before this all happened? Can we get it back in an article before closing this please? Also does someone feel like giving the big version a straighten and crop to bring it into line with the small one? --jjron (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --jjron (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting placement back in an article (and straighten and crop of large version). --jjron (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the old version with the new, hi-res version in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done; back in articles, back in original places in FP thumbs and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History, FP count incremented. --jjron (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joey in pouch

Reason

no longer meets size requirements, tight crop & extensive JPEG compression artifacts Thisglad (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

Thisglad (talk)

• Delist — Thisglad (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in fighting the good fight against unreasonable retroactive application of size guidelines to old images per my previous arguments on the subject, and because there is no evidence that this still isn't the best that WP has to offer which is the main point not it's size, so me a better shot and I'll change my vote. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The errors caused by compression was another listed reason if you look above, particularly in the bottom right corner, easily visible at 100%, not what you would expect as the best wikipedia has to offer. Thisglad (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I still think it's some of the best WP has to offer. Minor compression artifacts don't change that and while bigger would be better... the size is quite reasonable for the subject. gren グレン 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until replacement found I really don't think that this should be taken down without a suitable replacement. --Sharkface217 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a unique image, can't find this easily. You try pointing a camera in a kangaroo's pouch and see what she says. Samsara noadmin (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; per gren.—DMCer™ 07:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch butterfly

Reason

It seems to have been replaced by a more recent promotion that shows the same subject in pretty much the same way and is a higher res, especially on the subject.

PS: If it's of any interest, the existing FP was not mentioned at the recent FP candidacy.

Nominator

Samsara (talk • contribs)

• Delist — Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no law against multiple FPs of a single subject. Clegs (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clegs. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clegs. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clegs. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --John254 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut shy

Reason

Coconut shies barely visible, irrelevant signs in the background, tent cut off on all sides.

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Hopefully it will stick this time. I nominated this for delisting awhile back and it got kept despite my protests. It is also tilted un-ENC among other things. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. It captures the garishness well, but doesn't illustrate anything properly. Matt Deres (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to the image description page it has already been delisted "This was formerly a featured picture." --Fir0002 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's been picked up from Commons - see here. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: per nom; it's also on the small side.—DMCer™ 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. I can't believe I've never even noticed this amongst the FPs before. --jjron (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my thinking during previous delist discussion. de Bivort 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Signs in the background are fantastic. This guy is an original, they don't make them any more. Essential funfair atmosphere. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether the coconuts are visible is somewhat irrelevant given that this picture is also included in Funfair, which does not deal with coconuts. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only encyclopedic for Funfair because it's a coconut shy, in which case the visibility of the coconuts is pretty crucial. Pstuart84 Talk 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. It's encyclopaedic there because it's a funfair stall. Whether it's coconuts, cans, balls or airguns, candy or raffle, irrelevant. It is a funfair stall. It conveys a lot (npi) about what a funfair stall is, and how it's run. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well thanks to Pstuart84 for mentioning the delisting candidacy this time. I'm not that bothered whether this picture is delisted or not, since I gave up on illustrating Wikipedia over a year ago, when I got tired of folks in the Featured Pictures arena getting too hung up on irrelevant technicalities, such as marginally blown highlights, horizons off by < 1° and most especially I got tired of ever increasing demands for more and more pixels even though they are unlikely to be of any benefit to Wikipedia (even should a print edition one day materialise in the never never). I only noticed the last delisting suggestion on this picture months after the event, but was nevertheless disappointed to see that many people in FPC were still hung up on these sorts of anal considerations rather than trying to encourage the best illustrations for the widest range of subjects.

Now I've a lot more respect for this delisting suggestion since it is trying to focus on the content. However, I should note that many of you seem to be a little confused as to what a coconut shy actually is. A coconut shy is not the coconut, nor is it the cup and stick that the coconut rests on, rather it is the whole stall in which that game takes place. It doesn't specifically include the stall owner, although all coconut shys would have one and they could be seen as an integral part of the illustration. A useful analogy would be an illustration of a bowling alley which ought to show the bowling lane, just as much as the pins.

On another note, I tend to see this picture as an example of salvage ethnography (and I recall helping ensure that we had a number of examples of Edward Curtis illustrations for The North American Indian as FPs). Travelling showmen largely live their lives apart from the rest of society and have their own subculture. It is a lifestyle that is in decline and I wouldn't be surprised if has essentially disappeared in the next 50 years. Already the last bare-knuckle boxing booth has closed in the UK when its owner died of old age a couple of years ago. -- Solipsist (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't generally like quoting wikipedia on wikipedia but: "A coconut shy (or coconut shie) is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins each coconut successfully dislodged. In some cases other prizes may be won instead of the coconuts." So maybe a better analogy would be a picture of the outside of a bowling ally being used to illustrate bowling in general. See, at least according to our article, Coconut shy is the game. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on Fcb - if you insist on analogies, at least let them be accurate. If this were a bowling image, you would see the pins, they would just be small within the frame that also shows the lanes and ball returns and shoe rental desk. de Bivort 06:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Right you are, I didn't want to lose dramatic flare by saying an image showing shoe rental, arcade, bar... maybe you get the idea. ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And of course, you might want to check who wrote the article on the coconut shy and much of the article on the Aunt Sally too. -- Solipsist (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, well I know little about coconut shys but maybe if you, someone with more knowledge about it, thinks its in order, the beginning of the article should be revised. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – As per my comments from the previous nomination, main problems being the coconuts are hardly visible, and the tent is cut off. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for the same reasons I gave in the previous delist discussion: This isn't a good illustration of a coconut shy. The subject of the photo is clearly the man, and the coconuts themselves are partially obscured and hidden in a sea of distracting "other stuff." Also, the red channel is blown in several areas -- I'm not referring to the lightbulbs. -- Moondigger (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Moondigger Clegs (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Not encyclopedic. Cacophony (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is encyclopedic for funfair (as an example of a traditional coconut shy).. and also for the article coconut shy - deceptively, despite the name the coconuts should only make up the small part of the picture that they do here. shas^Yarr!/_T|C 10:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good color, composition OK. The image is striking and captures the atmosphere of the fair and carnival games. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it's used in funfair... which is more than just that specific game but the whole atmosphere. gren グレン 12:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The delist nom breaks my heart-- this has always been one of my favorite FPs. I agree that it's encyclopedic for Funfair. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Per above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Reason

Nominating to delist and replace with restored version.

Nominator

Durova^Charge!

• Delist and replace — Durova^Charge! 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Seems like we're substituting the scratched up historical photo look for the crappy grainy photo look :[ :D\=< (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace per nom. Nice job on the restoration. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposeper :D\=<, they call me a sucker, but I like some scratches on historic photos.D-rew (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While cleaning up scratches, you repaired the front woman's stocking run, and removed two lapel pins from the coat of the woman behind her! The cosmetic cleanup and sharpening removed detail and added digital artifacts. I strongly prefer the original, scratches and all. --mglg_(talk) 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the things I consider when doing these restorations is the historic and economic background. Stockings, for instance, were in very short supply during World War II.[2] It was highly unlikely that a Jewish woman in the Warsaw Ghetto would have had access to a high demand luxury that caused store riots even in the United States. At high magnification the contours of that mark are consistent with photographic decomposition rather than than a socking run. All other details were examined with equal attention to context. This particular discussion is taking surprising turns. Compare to Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06b.jpg. Durova^Charge! 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no doubt that your judgment about what features are or are not likely to be real is excellent, and I'll happily assume it to be superior to mine. I hestitate, however, to take it as obvious that your judgment is infallible, or that no qualified future Wikipedia viewer would reach different conclusions. Therefore I suggest that it is prudent to leave such judgments to the viewer, by maintaining any documentary image in a maximally documentary condition, free of all but the most basic processing. As for the overwhelming support this image received at commons, that appears to pertain to the image in general – which I think most of us agree is stellar – not to the pros and cons of this particular edit compared to the original. --mglg_(talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accuracy and historicity certainly are legitimate concerns with image restoration. A Holocaust museum uploaded the current version at my suggestion when the previous version was up for deletion due to size issues. It wasn't until a month afterward, when another Commons editor asked me to restore it that I undertook the task. A lot of tough restoration decisions get made at 300% or 500% or 700% resolution and the questions you raise are the same questions I ask myself. With restorations I always link from the restored file to an unrestored version, along with a description of the changes. That candid approach addresses issues of fidelity. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --John254 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud

Reason

The image hardly passed the nomination in the first place, the description was changed few times (my fault) and the image is nothing special.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

Mbz1 (talk)

• Delist — Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and note that perhaps some should heed some of the essays here, rather than being hasty. Can't see any reason to delist this one. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please believe me, Peripitus and everybody, my nomination for delisting has nothing to do with any comments by any user and no it is not WP:Point. It is my honest opinion. Yes I took this image, yes I supported it, but now I've changed my mind about FP images in general. I believe that only very special images should be getting FP status and I just do not consider this image of mine to be a very special one.It might have been more special, if at least it was taken in South Africa, where the plant comes from,but it was taken in San Francisco Botanical Garden. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw signs of a fuse blowing. A strong cup of tea may help. This picture, as found in the consensus here and the one on commons, is clearly FP material. Well taken, well composed, good looking specimen - Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry, if it feels this way, but please believe me there no fuse blowing. The flower is a common one, very easily reproduced and that's why the image is not special enogh to be FP IMO. Once again I am sorry, if it feels as I am disrupting Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A good image that still deserves the title. Some maturity for a change, Mbz1, would be nice. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chomp, chomp :D\=< (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think Mbz1 does some great work around here, and I don't want to get caught up in any Wikidrama. While this may be an easily reproduced image, I really don't see how it could be improved upon. Encyclopedic and high-quality, definitely deserving of FP status. faithless (^speak) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa Apartheid

Reason

Although this is very encyclopedic, the image is very small, and it is not very sharp at all.

Nominator

- Milk's Favorite Cookie

• Delist — - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom, pathetic size. It's a tough cut though--even if you were able to see the shadows of the raised letters, it wouldn't be much more enc.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Can someone with a good camera snap a high-res shot of this on their screen? :D\=< (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Per nom--CPacker (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend nom. Neither the creator/uploader, nor the original nominator have been notified of this delist nom. --jjron (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) OK (and it's had some results). --jjron (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and Done. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can provide a slightly larger version of it; I may have time to do that today. Other than that I cannot do anything except to state that the historical nature of the photo may be seen as outweighing the finest standards of image quality. --John (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I am not particularly invested in the outcome----but, do we have reason to believe that there is a higher resolution version around? gren グレン 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I have uploaded a slightly larger version; I do not currently have access to the original print I scanned it from. Again, if you are so minded, you may consider the historicity of the photo to outweigh the technical faults. John (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I presume that the sign is no longer there, so, with the larger version, (and with the request to John to upload a larger copy if he ever he gets the chance) I don't think that delisting is appropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High enc and historical value, new size and sharpness are adequate for subject. Mfield (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As said above about the historical value outweighing the minor flaws in quality --Mifter (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The size has improved (Thanks John) I will go close my nom now. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USS Akron (ZRS-4) Airship flying over southern Manhattan

Reason

Too small, doesn't add much information of USS Akron or its history. If it is thought to be valued for its image of Manhattan panorama of early 30-40's, then there is already a much bigger and cleaner FP.

Nominator

Mothmolevna ( © ® )

• Delist — Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Just too small and too low in quality. It has EV in that it provides a sense of scale for the airship (the largest in the world at the time, iirc), but that doesn't make it a featured picture, just a good one for the article. Matt Deres (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend nom. Neither the uploader, nor the original nominator have been notified of this delist nom. --jjron (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) OK. --jjron (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done 1 2 3 --Mothmolevna ( © ® ) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Airship flying over southern Manhattan shows that I am actually not the original nominator of that image, although I was notified by Mothmolevna as being so; you can see from the archive of nomination discussion that I nominated a different image and it was replaced during discussion by this one as nominated by User:ScottyBoy900Q - Bevo (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --jjron (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quorum not met.

Marine da nang

Reason

Oddly compelling picture but it's not used in any articles and it's a bit small by featured standards.

Nominator

Guest9999 (talk)

• Nomination cannot proceed until original uploader and/or nominator is notified (for the third time in about a week). I've even added a note to that effect to the delist template since last time, still to no effect! --jjron (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Original FPC nom here, previous delist nom here. --jjron (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I thought I had informed the original uploader[3] five minutes after I made the nomination[4], should have looked at the log. Guest9999 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Must admit I missed that 'dead' edit on the original uploader anyway, I actually only checked the FPC nominator's talkpage as it wasn't created by a Wikipedian. All good now. --jjron (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to the 'small' issue, I've gone to the source and re-uploaded the original (after cleaning up dust and scratches). Its a bit soft, but since this is the original (at least as far as the National Archives is concerned), this is as good as its going to get. My vote is for a Keep, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd now have no problem withdrawing my nomination if the image can be placed in a suitable article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a message on the Vietnam War talk page asking one of the editors if they can find a home for the image. Lets see what happens. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist the reason it isn't used in any articles because its encyclopedic value is limited, it's just a portrait snapshot of an unidentified person and it doesn't illustrate any particular activity of the Vietnam war (not even the 1965 landing at da nang), except maybe showing what a uniform of that period looked like, there are 1000s of images like this considering the popularity of photography among American military personnel that served in that war.Thisglad (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added to the article Military camouflage, in the U.S. section for the vietnam war. That satisfies the needed article requirement. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks good. ^8thstar 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Resolution is good and since it is now used in an article I see no reason to delist it. As far as I can recall, when this became a FP it was used in several articles. - Darwinek (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I noticed that contrary to standard procedure it was never listed which articles the image was used in in the original nom Thisglad (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to go and look at some other noms from 2005 - try the month this was originally nominated for example. Back then listing the articles was not standard procedure, that only came in later; some people mentioned it in their reason, some didn't. --jjron (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Darwinek--CPacker (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Darwinek makes a very good point. I don't see a reason to delist. Spencer^T♦C 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is nothing wrong with this picture. Clegs (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good clarity. MrPrada (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green turtle

Reason

because I like this image better

Nominator

Mbz1 (talk)

• Delist — Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't agree with you there. Swimmer in the background of alternate image is distracting. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A swimmer could be removed, but IMO a swimmer adds to the composition of the image and clearly indicates that it is not an aqurium shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kepp - dunno, I actually like the current featured better. The one you suggest looks a little empty. diego_pmc (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. crassic!^[talk] 02:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The beautiful habitat of the Hawaii waters says a lot about the species. And no distraction of the swimmer as per Kaldari.  Jingshen  16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• May I please just point out that I believe that turtles cannot care less about "The beautiful habitat of the Hawaii waters". The thing is that turtles do not feed on live corals. The turtules feed on sea grass as is shown in this image of mine . I do see turtles swimming by corals more or less often, but only because they are passing by from their resting (basking) ground to their feeding ground and back. I've noticed that more and more turtles feed closer to their resting ground without swimminng over corals. Here is the image, which I took from shore. You could see a turtle in a very shallow water probably feeding on sea grass and other turtle resting at the rock at the right hand side of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that extra info. is better than this image in terms of the feeding. But the FP in question has a better illustration of the environment that those turtles live in - amongst the corals.  Jingshen  02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Info only. Just some information that people might find helpful in making their judgment. Original nomination for FP. and Commons nom for POTY here  Jingshen  03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Thank you for bringing these links up. I should have done it myself. It is interesting to review them after so many months, but once again turtules do not live among corals. They only swimm by and rarely rest under corals . BTW may I please ask what do you think about these two images and (the second one was taken not to illustrate a turtle, but rather to illustrate Total internal reflection). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is not a place to advocate your personal views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish I knew what you are talking about, what personal view of mine I am advacating. I believe we are having a very polite discussion what image of mine represents green turtle and they natural habitat better. May I please ask you to be more specific and tell me where exactly you see me advocating my personal views that I would not repeat this mistake in the feature. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. Thank you all for the comments and for the votes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --jjron (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jet engine

Reason

Was replaced in jet engine by a more complete diagram (see Talk:Jet engine#Image:Jet engine.svg) and is no longer used in any articles.

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Delist — howcheng {chat} 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I would rather improve the current featured. It's a lot better looking, and understandable. diego_pmc (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term jet engine encompasses more than just turbofans, which is what user:Wolfkeeper is looking for on the talk page of jet engine. This image is specifically a gas turbine jet engine, rather than a turbofan engine. If a turbofan is a more representative type of jet engine than a gas turbine, we can use the turbofan. A while ago, I asked wolfkeeper what was wrong with the image and what he was looking for, but I can't quite understand what he needs. I'd be happy to draw a turbofan if he can tell me which FAA diagram to base it on. This image, though, is a good depiction of its type, and is not incomplete. It is aesthetically pleasing and technically competent, and it can add a lot to articles like gas turbine or turbojet. In fact, I'll add it to those articles now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeff Dahl. NauticaShades 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep very well done and high enc. Cacophony (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeff Dahl. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason (yet) to delist. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-04-29 15:14Z

Kept MER-C 05:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agassiz statue

Reason

I actually really like this image, but the EV just isn't there. Right from the original nom it's been struggling for a place in an article. It was promoted after being shoved into San Francisco earthquake, but it's not there any longer. I can't really think of where it would really be valuable.

Nominator

jjron (talk)

• Delist — jjron (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom + tilted and unsharp. Mfield (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. crassic!^[talk] 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist this does not illustrate anything very noteworthy since there are better pictures of the earthquake damage Thisglad (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and info A slightly different crop of this picture has been in place in Louis Agassiz for at least the last year. I've switched it over to this version since it's substantially the same image but higher quality. If the editors on that page feel it is useful, then I'm willing to give it a pass on the EV, if only for the wonderful quip it affords. Matt Deres (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I considered it for there, but how much EV does this have for an article on Agassiz? It's akin to a trivia section which are discouraged in articles - it's a trivia photo if you like. I can't even understand why there's a statue of him at Stanford when he spent his career in the US at Harvard (and it's never explained in anything to do with this photo). --jjron (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't actually disagree with your position, I'm just saying that in a case like this, the fact that it's been used in an article for several months implies that the editors of the article feel it has value, which is (ultimately) the point in deciding whether it has EV or not. Call my vote a "keep vote on behalf of the article editors" or something :-). Matt Deres (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The incident itself is actually famous, and photos of it (possibly this one) are being used time and again in science lectures the world over. It happened to temporally coincide with the overthrowing of some of Agassiz' ideas, which is why the meme got popular (beyond the photo's comic value of a statue of a man with his head buried in the sand). That's enough EV for me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I wonder which theories they would be that coincide with this. He's probably best known for his work on ice ages (still a lot of valid work there now), his anti-evolution/anti-Darwinism until his death in 1873 ('overthrown' in his lifetime), and his racial ideas (still pretty popular long after 1906). Still haven't been shown any significant link between this and any content. --jjron (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theories was not universal at the time of Agassiz's death. It was not until the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on genetic inheritance in 1900 (note the date) that the theory of natural selection gained a mechanism for descent. It was at that time that there was a sea change in biology and Agassiz became identified as part of the "old guard" and unfairly (IMO) mocked for not accepting a theory that (while ultimately correct) was not at all ironclad in his time. Matt Deres (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was more a case of waiting for the 'old guard' to die out than any lack of acceptance. Agassiz was one of the last reputable scientists with a basically creationist mindset, along with a few other old-timers from there. We see that sort of thing often, not just in science, where new ideas have to wait for the embedded hierarchy to move on before the new ideas are 'officially' universally accepted. Mendel's work provided a mechanism and helped with the then resurgent Neo-Darwinism, but the vast majority of serious scientists had long before abandoned creationist notions (certainly before Darwin's death in 1882, and indeed before Agassiz's death as well) largely due to Darwin's insights, even if they didn't fully agree with Darwin's theories for how it worked. --jjron (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's got the wow, i.e. eyecatching. "Hystorical", too.  ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 08:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. I sentimentally want this to stay featured, but it's not really encyclopedic for Louis Agassiz, the only real article in which the image appears. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 05:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified Wood

Reason

Quite frankly this image no longer has the image and techinal quality to be considered an FP. The lighting is harsh and I find that the item in the top right-hand corner is distracting. Composition is poor and it just doesn't seem to be an image that we can continue to consider as being featured

Nominator

Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?}

• Delist — Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend until creator (and optionally nominator since it's by a Wikipedian but wasn't a self-nom, though I think the nominator is long gone anyway) are notified about delist, as per clearly stated instructions. --jjron (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Notification done. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per reasons mentioned above. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist no wow. Mangostar (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist harsh lighting, not up to FP standards anymore. Spencer^T♦C 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. It has a combination of flaws - composition, apparent sharpness (motion blur? shot without stabiliser?), DOF; lighting is not the greatest worry here. I also think that such a large mineral could and should be shot/uploaded at a higher resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral upon higher res version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you see motion blur? And a stabilizer in the scorching dessert sun??!! --Dschwen 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does appear to be some spherical aberration in the top left and (more so) in the top right hand sides of the image. I think that is what PLW was referring to. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harsh lighting is a judgment call; the pic was obviously taken in full sunlight in a natural setting. Yes, it's bright, but the strength of the light is natural and helps reveal the detail and colour involved. I don't think what we're seeing here is motion blur, but mostly shallow DOF, which I don't think is terribly important given that the important depth is the depth that's in focus. Delist this one after we get a better one, IMO; it's not embarrassing itself against our other FPs. Matt Deres (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's ARIZONA. The light's going to be very bright and harsh by default. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the lighting is natural, i don't see it as an issue for de-listing --Kalyan (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Composition. Crop is too tight, angle leaves something to be desired. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• harsh lighting is a bad joke, this is the Arizona sun. *shakes head*. It is sharp and has little noise. I'd tend to agree with Matt Deres. You'd have to delist a hell of a lot more FPs if this goes down. Keep. --Dschwen 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I uploaded a new larger version. Which by the way purges and re-renders all resized versions, which look sharper now... --Dschwen 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Maybe it wouldn't quite pass today, but maybe it would. Definitely isn't so flawed as to merit delisting.--ragesoss (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --NauticaShades 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore

Reason

The image doesn't seem to be upto the standards of Wikipedia's FPs anymore. At full size, the image looks very grainy. The plane also looks over contrasted to me and there seems to be white specs splattered over the trees. It's possible for the specs to be fixed but I don't think anything will reduce the amount of graininess the image suffers from.

Nominator

Save-Me-Oprah^(talk)

• Delist — Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per general sentiment in previous delist discussion. Pstuart84 Talk 10:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No doubt this image is amazing and it would be difficult to take another shot just like this. Jared (t)  21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per not only one, but two previous delist discussions. NauticaShades 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ^8thstar 02:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per known flaws, multiple delist nominations, been on the front page three times (once as FA, twice as FP), no big deal, saves us effort in the future. Let's be realistic and pragmatic about this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The multiple delist noms were to keep the image; I don't see what difference it makes that it's been on the front page 3 times; and it's a little condescending to imply that those wanting to keep the image are not being "realistic and pragmatic". Pstuart84 Talk 17:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist each half of the image detracts from the other; no enc value added by having both AF1 and Mt Rushmore in the same shot. Mangostar (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delist per nom and per Mangostar; two substandard shots in the same frame do not a featured picture make. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous discussions.--ragesoss (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veined leaf

Reason

Low resolution, poor composition (cut off on three sides), reproducible

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I had been meaning to nominate this one myself. Mangostar (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Renominate this when a better alternative has been uploaded. Currently, this image does its encyclopaedic job very well. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep per PLW; delist this when we get a better one. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this does a very good job of showing the veins in a leaf. With that as it's purpose,a wider crop would just add distracting background. Clegs (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominate again when a better is available. crassic!^[talk] 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Clegs and Crassic. ^8thstar 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This picture is quite informative. I would wait to delist until a better picture is taken. NauticaShades 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I agree a wider crop might not help but that just looks off kilter... it will still be used in the articles even if not featured. gren グレン 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Even worse cut-off than the one below. There are thousands of badly cut but very encyclopedic pics on Wiki - what makes this special. Motmit (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Because of the crop. It's a relatively easy photo to reproduce. The freddinator (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As aforementioned, the way it is cropped makes it much less appealing. Otherwise if the entire leaf was shown it would be deserving of FP.-- mcshadypl ^TC 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote

Reason

Cut off, especially the ear. Cute rather than encyclopedic.

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Admittedly, the cut off ear is unfortunate, but the sharpness is excellent, and I doubt this kind of shot would be easily reproducable. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 10:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist noisy background, subject cutoff in awkward manner. Matt Deres (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very difficult shot to reproduce (trust me, I am a photographer who takes quite a few animals pics). He had to have been using a huge zoom to get that close a shot without the coyote looking at him, and the sharpness is spot-on. Clegs (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I'm certain that a better photo could be taken. crassic!^[talk] 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Until better photo is taken. ^8thstar 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a high quality image, and must have been difficult to take. The crop is somewhat tight, but it does not detract too much from the image. NauticaShades 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite the cut off ear it is still a high quality image and of course probably quite difficult to reproduce. Cat-five - talk 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Van Gogh effect is unfortunate, but still a FP. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cut-off is not an issue, high detail and enc value. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-05-20 18:22Z
• Keep for now. Ideally, we should see the whole subject, but I don't see strong evidence for overthrowing the original decision. Anyway, enjoyed the humour @kennedy! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I'm glad someone does :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 13:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist cut-off of the ear is unacceptable for the highest accolade. Also the placement is less than ideal. Does not prevent it being considered a useful enc pic, which has valuable place in articles, until a complete head is available Motmit (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's still a very good photo. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower

Reason

Very blurry; more notable for artistic lighting than encyclopeidic value.

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Blurry, but high rez outweighs that. Good composition: artsy lighting, but perfect angle for detail. It isn't perfect, but it is really good. At least until Diliff can be dispatched...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of my favorite pictures. I forgot it was this unsharp, but otherwise, it's very nice, mainly because of the cute composition. Blieusong (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's a good photo, but the sharpness is a little iffy for a featured picture. crassic!^[talk] 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't find sharpness bad at all; it's eight megapixels, and the level of detail in the picture is comparable to recent FPs. Thegreenj 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Mfield (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a little blurry admittedly but still overall a good picture and fp worthy. Cat-five - talk 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist An important and interesting subject gets the dreaded sillouette treatment because someone notices the sky is a different colour at dawn. All detail of the subject is lost behind an awful glare. Delist and take this and others of its ilk out of Wiki articles Motmit (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical mouse cutaway

Reason

Falls far short of the resolution requirements, and some parts are a bit grainy (the shadow).

Nominator

Reguiieee (talk)

• Delist until there is an SVG version Keep — Reguiieee (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist photo used for mouse is out of focus & not an excellent diagram, just mediocre, it could be redrawn into a much better svg Thisglad (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wasting your time This is silly. Go CREATE SOMETHING instead of wrangling to pull stuff down. I don't see history for either one of you - Reguiieee, Thisglad. Is this your job here to be non-contributing critics?! Drama. (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to clarify: I am NOT trying to assert that I know better than everyone else. I am NOT demanding anyone to follow my opinions. This is a democratic process that represents a wider judgment. I am willing to accept my own mistake; please do not insult me. Reguiieee (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. My apologies on the emotion here. It becomes very frustrating, though, when I pour a great deal of effort into this project only to have the work dismissed without a viable alternative. Got something better? I bow to the improvement. But saying something does not meet "a standard" just irritates. I suppose you could say that your criticism is a form of contribution... I am curious what you mean by "resolution requirements" and need a reference here to guide me. I am very willing to improve this image - bear in mind that it did take me about 20 hours to complete. Can you give me a little more detail here about graininess and how you would improve the SVG portion? And, alas, I seem to have misplaced the mouse image file and will have to recreate that entirely. (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a link in the original nomination to the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria which explain the "resolution requirements". Criterion 2 states it should be a minimum 1000px in the shortest dimension. While this was probably promoted prior to this requirement, this does fall well short of this 'standard', at only 530 x 436px. Re the graininess, if you look at the photo parts, especially visible in the shadowy area, you'll see that it looks 'speckled' rather than smooth. I think the issue here is more to do with the original mouse image you have used, which is small, grainy, and not well focussed, so not having that is possibly not such a problem, as I think you'd really need a better photo to base it off. I assume you still have the drawn SVG part? If so, would it be hard to combine that with a better quality mouse photo to meet the concerns? You might be able to find a suitable photo on Commons that you could use. Don't know, just trying to help :-). --jjron (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep - I found and and added that link to the resolution reqs. The image needs to be refurbished. (image creator) jk (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fully agree with jk. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • is that a valid reason to keep, perhaps you should clarify what exactly are you agreeing with? Thisglad (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the SVG version, Thisglad? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There can't be... not with a photograph of the mouse... gren グレン 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thisglad seems to be offering one. I think he should provide. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you understood what I wrote, maybe you should read it again, I did not offer to draw a SVG illustration of the mouse parts depicted in this blurry photograph, although I said it was possible considering we have much more detailed SVG diagrams than this, in spite of the fact that this is based on a photograph, the quality of the photography is not featured quality Thisglad (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I understood quite well. Unfortunately, we can't do a delist and replace until we have something to replace *with*. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep big enough and good enough. I'm not sure how much a larger version would help but I see no reason to delist. gren グレン 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's perfectly legitimate to vote "delist" without proposing a replacement. Thisglad clearly wasn't offering a replacement, simply that he thought that a better version could be produced. Pstuart84 Talk 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is perfectly valid to question the purpose of an exercise that clearly is not improving the encyclopaedia, but instead wasting contributors' time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) If you think it's wasting contributors' time, no-one's forcing them to join in; (2) you can question the purpose but it seemed like you were harassing thisglad for a perfectly reasonable delist vote; and (3) you say it's not improving the encyclopaedia, but the delist process serves to raise the average quality of the collection of featured pictures. There's been quite a bit of goading by users on FPC lately when the spirit can and should be positive and constructive. Pstuart84 Talk 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying they shouldn't join Wikipedia? Are you asking people to leave? Or are you saying we should just abandon the community spirit and leave all the delisting to you, while others slave away trying to create content, that you, our Fuehrer, consider good enough? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can we retain some perspective here please? I don't think WP:CIVIL is a bad place to start and this Führer stuff is pretty inflammatory. You throw around bold assertions like "an exercise that clearly is not improving the encyclopedia" and resort to cheap insults when someone takes issue with the claim. Pstuart84 Talk 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, you're being very keen to defend a questionable practice that you are one of the main protagonists of. You should have expected questions about your behaviour to be raised, especially when you suggest that people should entirely abandon the thin veil that some people mistake for democracy around here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could you please identify the "questionable practice" that you say I'm engaged in and my "behaviour" about which you say questions need to be raised? Perhaps you could provide some diffs? Pstuart84 Talk 10:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your main effort at FPC is directed at demoting images. It seems that you feel elevated when you can find a flaw in something someone else has done. Let me tell you, that kind of attitude is highly injurious. Every time you nominate an image for delisting, a content contributor gets hurt, gets upset, and may end up hating you and others expressing support for the motion. Some of these people will reduce their efforts in content creation. In addition to that, some of those who expressed opinions in favour of an image at its original nomination may feel that the effort they took in judging the image and coming to a balanced judgement is being overturned. Add to that all the people participating in previous delist discussions, if there are any. The individuals contributing to this project are about the only resource that we have. You diss their work, you kill the project. Think about it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well we got there in the end. If you think my main effort here is delisting images, then you should look at 2 years worth of contributions, rather than what you've seen in the three months you've been here. There's nothing wrong with engaging in the delist process - standards change and images can be delisted without anyone's feelings being hurt (and there's certainly no intent to hurt feelings). Indeed, you've voted to delist images in the past: [5], [6]. It's part of the project and noone deserves to be harassed and insulted for taking part. Pstuart84 Talk 14:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The delicate theme of this delist discussion, as I've tried to explain to you, is who is harassing whom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the specific mechanical issues referenced here are valid (SVG format and resolution), the picture is also listed because of the concept of the image; what it teaches and illustrates. Though I was put off by the insult F-word above, I agree with the spirit of PLW's argument here. Critique takes vastly less energy than creation. It must be done with a great deal of care and consideration and concrete arguments. If you review your contributions to the 'pedia, you might reconsider your focus if you see that MOST of your energy is going toward reducing the offerings vs. increasing them. This is a vast resource for the large community of educators who rely on right-free imagery, for instance, and even marginal work serves a public good. Now let's wrap this discussion and go out and BUILD STUFF! (image creator) jk (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist This should be a SVG diagram with text labels. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to make vast improvements on. Cacophony (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My goal in using the numbers was to allow for easier localization. Is it better practice to require the editors in other languages to dig into the image file itself to translate? (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Here is another example of this technique:[reply]
• Delist If this was being nominated for FPC now, rather than as a delist, I am 99% certain that it would get unanimous opposes, citing the low resolution and dithering. Apart from that, one of the questions I ask myself when looking at FPCs is, "Would I be disappointed if I saw this as picture of the day on the main page?" (I know it's not one of the official criteria, but it is useful). In this case, I'm afraid the answer is a definite yes. Compare it to something like Image:Personal computer, exploded 6.svg which has been nominated above and seems to be going for not featured (0 Support, 3 Oppose). Time3000 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apparently still falls under the best WP has to offer and still an adequately good image to be featured. Cat-five - talk 03:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling thunder cloud

Reason

Definitely no longer meets the size requirements and not a very impressive picture.

Nominator

Crassic! (talk)

Previous nominations

1, 2

• Delist — Crassic! (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please link previous delist discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And the second one too (which I for some reason couldn't get to link normally). Matt Deres (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This image is practically unrepeatable. WP:IGNORE would come into play here, I believe. It's too good an image to let the normal size parameters force it into a delist. Not a very impressive picture? You go out and take a more impressive one of a storm. That is one of the most impressive pictures I have seen. Clegs (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AGAIN, as per my reasons on every other delist discussion. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wouldn't say it was "practically unrepeatable." Matt Deres (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'd say our image is superior to both of those. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen nothing with the impact of this though. The cloud over the city gives a stunning indication of the scale of the cloud and storm. Great stuff. --jjron (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Original nomination here FWIW. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As much as I appreciate the scale and positioning of the shot, I just can't see how it can be an FP when it's no bigger than a large thumbnail. It's disappointing; the viewer clicks on it hoping to get really blown away and is left with a snapshot sized pic. This is a well-defined front, but storms occur every day; someone get Diliff some galoshes or something... Matt Deres (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist these kind of clouds aren't that rare anyway see [7] & [8] which are all in the public domain as well Thisglad (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haven't seen anything that's better than the image we have. There is a bigger version available if (see LiquidGhoul's comment in the discussion I cited above) if resolution is a problem for others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is upsampled arbitrarily rather than an original higher resolution from the source Thisglad (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until we can get another image with comparable or better impact. --Janke | Talk 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Janke (& others). Still a very striking photo. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not very impressive? Are we looking at the same picture? --Calibas (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - far too small.... but this is a stunning image - Peripitus (Talk) 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. ^8thstar 03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plant cell structure-en.svg

Reason

THE Golgi bodies in this cell appears to be doing nothing, however, this is a highly specific subcellular organelle that processes important substances for the cell, obtaining them initially from the ER and detaching vesicles to send them to the plasma membrane. There's more to it than this, but this Golgi appears to be getting proteins from the vacuole and modifying them to be sent to the nucleus? Or maybe it is getting stuff from the rER around the nucleus and sending it to the vacuole, but the Golgi vesicles don't appear to be coming from the ER? It's hard to tell, but it's not Golgi that's going on. The Golgi needs to be accurate, cause this cell won't live.

Nominator

Blechnic (talk)

• Delist — Blechnic (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — There seems to be nothing wrong with this image other than the fact that it is a static image. Sure, the real organelles will be active and moving in a real cell, but this cannot be accurately depicted in a static two dimensional system. Perhaps if we had a diagram that depicted this, it would be beneficial to the project, just as this image is.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry, that's not correct, the Golgi body does not gather substances from the vacuole, but rather takes proteins from the rough Endoplastic Reticulum, processes them further, then distributes them in Golgi vessicleen towards the plasma membrane. This cell has a Golgi body gathering proteins from the vacuole, and no matter how hard the vacuole tries it simply does not have the machinery of the rough ER, namely, that which makes it rough: ribosomes. It's a matter of biology, this cell diagram is a diagram of a non-functioning cell. This second diagram that I added below, for example, is a diagram of a cell with a functioning Golgi apparatus that can actually do that which is necessary for the cell to function: make proteins. All the original research and lack of biology in the world won't save this cell and bring it to life. Also, static cells are a function of the medium, flat screen, there's plenty of room for a biologically accurate cell diagram. --Blechnic (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, again, you are again discussing the technical limitations of the image. It is not illustrating any processes. It is illustrating the general placement of the organelles of the plant cell. Any description of a process would be covered in the Golgi body article or the rough endoplasmic reticulum article. As far as I can see, the Golgi body is near both forms of the endoplasmic reticulum and the vaculole. I can see nothing wrong with this image based on what I see on the below image. Even though the below image is of an animal cell and not a plant cell.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not discussing the processes, I am discussing the location of the Golgi body in this particular diagram, which makes it a cell without a functioning Golgi body. Organelles do not occur in just any location in a cell, they often occur in functionally specific locations. The Golgi body in this cell is in a non-functioning location with its cis-face, which should be closest of the two faces to the rough ER, facing a vacuole. This means, that for this particular cell illustration, newly formed proteins from the rough ER that need further processing in the cisternae of the Golgi apparatus, have nowhere to go. However, proteins formed in the vacuole are ready set to go to enter the cis-face of this cell's single Golgi, except for the fact that proteins in a cell are not formed in the vacuole. The cell below has the cis-face of the Golgi facing the rough ER. The trans-face of the plant cell's Golgi appears to be facing the smooth ER, but that hardly matters since it's processing proteins built in the vacuole. It's a simple matter of biology: the biology is wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So this is just the orientation of the Golgi bodies. Seems to be a minor issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's a major issue, it kills the cell. However it is a fixable issue, but it has to be fixed, and until then, it should be delisted as a FP, and, removed from articles: it gives false information. Encyclopedias should at least have the basic facts straight, and proteins are some pretty basic and important facts to living things. --Blechnic (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just as Ryulong said. It's an excellent introductory illustration. General illustrations of this sort cannot possibly illustrate every single process happening within the cell (there are thousands of those). This illustration is among the best we have, of any subject. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to illustrate the process. This image is illustrating, however, a process that doesn't take place. If it's going to illustrate any processes, it should illustrate biological processes, not non-biological processes, or the positions of the organelles after the cell dies. These choices serve no purpose. --Blechnic (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to be more accurate w.r.t. how this illustration would be improved. What is your complaint? That the Golgi has the wrong orientation? Or that the vesicles are the wrong colour? Because I don't even see how you can tell where the vesicles are going. And comparing an animal cell to a plant cell is not necessarily helpful. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You argue so forcefully to keep, it's a bit hard to understand what is going on. Quite simply the Golgi body takes proteins from the rough ER (ribosomes) and processes them further, then sends them out in the Golgi vessicles to other locations in the cell. The cis-face of the Golgi is the face facing the rough ER, and is often convex in shape. This is where proteins from the rough ER enter the Golgi for further, methodical, direction specific processing in the ciseternae of the Golgi, from the rough ER, to the Golgi intermediate/tubulovesicular complex whose vessicles fuse to the cis-face of the Golgi, to the Golgi, through the Golgi medial cisternae, being processed in the stack along the way, to the trans Golgi cisternae, to the trans Golgi network, and often concave face, where they bud off and are sorted for transport within the cell. Biological processes involving proteins are not usually two way streets, and the Golgi apparatus isn't a two way street or a random street. A simple diagram of a cell will show none of this, but it should not have the Golgi in a biologically non-functional location. It doesn't matter whether it's an animal or plant cell showing a Golgi for a simplified cell diagram. The animal cell has serious issues, also, but it's Golgi is biologically functional. The plant cell is dead. And the very least that should be shown is a diagram attempting to represent a living cell, not a cell with artifacts of death, only used in encyclopedias and biology texts when it is cell death that is being discussed. --Blechnic (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I very much doubt that cells ever die because their Golgi body gets misaligned. But be that as it may, it seems your problem can be solved by moving the vacuole out of the way, which is a trivial thing to do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the Golgi has to face the rough ER! The vacuole's not the problem. And, yes, the majority of cells, at least cells with all the parts in this diagram, do make proteins their entire lives. Please, just grab an introductory biology text and look at the plant and animal cell diagrams in it, the labeled ones. --Blechnic (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This seems to be becoming a very tedious discussion. Why don't you make what changes you need to the image, and present it as a replacement candidate? Inkscape is your friend. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not an illustrator. It will have to be done by someone else. What's tedious? You don't seem to know much about the Golgi apparatus and are offering suggestions and voting without this knowledge. Maybe that's what's tedious. --Blechnic (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not interested in a pissing match. My !vote is up there. Be bold. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, apparently based on limited biological knowledge, whereas I'm simply going by the lack of biological accuracy, something that should matter in an encyclopedia. Too bad for the readers this isn't true, and a pretty picture is good enough. Pictures shouldn't be original research and creative interpretations, they should be clear and accurate diagrams of what they're supposed to represent. I'm not surprised to have folks vote based on it being a pretty diagram, as that was what I expected when I first pointed out how many of these biological diagrams are inaccurate: that putting them up for delisting would result in their becoming permanent crap on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Be bold and ((sofixit)). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, that's exactly what I'm doing, bringing it to the attention of someone who can fix it. I've notified the illustrator, and its appearance here may attract more attention. Until then, it needs to stop appearing on the featured picture pages, where it merely shows that Wikipedians don't care what their images show as long as they're purty. --Blechnic (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Blechnic, since you seem to be talking about a request for improvement, rather than a delist, please move this image to Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve - we are always ready to help. Please provide us with a detailed list of the changes you would like to see in this image. For example, tell us where the vesicles should be positioned to be technically accurate, if you want to imply movement, we may be able to imply it with shadows. Please be as clear and detailed as possible, sticking to terms and labels that are already in the image. See you there. Dhatfield (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I posted it there. I still think it doesn't belong in any articles in its current state. Movement isn't necessary, it can be what it's trying to be: a simplified static cell diagram. There is room in all kinds of learning for diagrams of this nature. But it can't simplify an important component to a nonfunctioning position, that's all. --Blechnic (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First of all, it is in no way illustrated that the golgi apparatus is gathering proteins from the vacuole. This is only inferred from the diagram. At any rate, this minor quibble is not substantial enough to delist this image. If you would like it corrected, why don't you contact LadyofHats, the creator of the image? NauticaShades 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've contacted LadyofHats, who doesn't generally correct her biological images. She still has tons of bacteria in foreign languages which include an artifact of fixation, and quite a number of her cellular ultrastructure images have glaring and obvious problems that only serve to make Wikipedia look incompetent. You're the ones who said I should bring up problematic images. The Golgi can't gather proteins from the vacuol, so of course it's not doing that. And if you're here to certify that biologically inaccurate images on the front page of Wikipedia is fine, then so be it. After all, inaccuracy hardly interferes with encyclopedic value, now, does it? So, here I am pointing out problems,, and it seems that, yes, biological inaccuracies or failures don't impact the encyclopedic value of images. --Blechnic (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, all I'm saying is that these images are the best we've got. If you can procure better free images, then by all means do so. Unfortunately, I doubt this is possible. On the other hand, you are right about the inaccuracy of the image question, and it is good that you have brought the issue up. Nevertheless, a delist nomination is not really the best place for a correction. The graphic labs or the creator might address the issue more competently. I realize that you have made the problem known at these places, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe that the error is not enough for delisting the image. You have pointed out that this image will be on the front page for all to see, but keep in mind that Wikipedia:Featured Pictures and Wikipedia:Picture of the Day are different projects. If you truly believe this image should never be featured on the front page in its current state, then talk to someone like Howcheng, who I think is quite active in WP:POTD. NauticaShades 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Essentially you're saying to me, if we have a picture of a Crotalus ruber and post it in the taxobox for the Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus that's okay because it's the best picture of a southwestern rattlesnake we have. It's not okay for this picture to be used on Wikipedia, nor for many other cellular ultrastructure pictures by this illustrator--they're original research, not biology. "Best we have" doesn't make it good enough for Wikipedia--and this is a damn hard point to get across when it comes to images. These should not be promoted without review by a biologist, probably not uploaded without prior review due to the nature of the problems. And it's irritating that I have to try to explain this issue to people who don't really understand the issue but are voting against me, anyhow. That's pretty much the wiki way on knowledge, though. --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist -- factually inaccurate images should not be featured. This obvious truth has been codified in featured picture criterion six, which provides that a featured picture

Since the inaccuracy of the image has been effectively conceded, it should be delisted until such time as it can be corrected. John254 01:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change policy since voting began this image has gone through two edits at the Graphics Lab and is now, to within the limits of what can be implied in such a diagram, accurate. I propose that all delist candidate images should go through a mandatory edit phase by either the Graphics Lab or the original author at the delist nominator's instigation having a minimum duration of two days, prior to nomination for FP delist. In the case that the image is irreparable, the relevant Graphist would be obliged to second the delisting on those grounds. A 'Delist nomination pending' category would assist this process. Dhatfield (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image as it now stands is what it originally attempted to be, a simplified diagram of a plant cell. Other editors accused me of being too picky, I could really pick a lot apart on this diagram, but what I asked for was simply a diagram that idealized all aspects of the cell at the same level, and the prior orientation of the Golgi body made it a random organelle thrown in the cell. I'm not and wasn't asking it to be perfect. Sending to Graphics lab first would have been fine. The original author does not appear to be willing to correct her mistakes, so this would not have worked. She was, however, notified. Thanks, Dhatfield, for the good work. --Blechnic (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . --John254 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Bunker Shot

Reason

it doesn't meet the criteria

Articles this image appears in

golf, Golf course

Creator

Fcb981

• Support demotion as nominator --Temporary Sanity (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has <15 edits Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sorely hope this is a joke. This picture was nominated less than 2 weeks ago and it was found to be good enough to pass by today's standards. Secondly you're not giving any reason to delist the image as a Fp. Thirdly.... There's a huge section at the bottom of this page where delisting candidates are supposed to go.... victorrocha (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose demotion. No reasons given for delisting, very recently passed FPC. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The next time you fill a motion for demotion make sure you file it under demotion, not promotion. I have moved the nomination to its proper place on the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as keep. Only just promoted, no clear reasons given, nomination not filled out correctly (where is link to original nom? why hasn't the creator/nominator been notified as is required?), user probably needs to establish some contribution history before randomly pulling out delist noms (user account was less than an hour old when nom was created). --jjron (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close this joke Muhammad(talk) 08:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 10:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunspot_TRACE.jpeg

Reason

There are 2 reasons for delisting this image. Firstly, this image does not meet the current size requirements for FPC and secondly the technical quality of this image is poor.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunspot TRACE

Nominator

Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review}

• Delist — Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how you determined that the technical quality is low - the file size seems appropriate for the image dimensions. Do we have a higher resolution reference image for what this should look like? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  [9] prehaps a viable alternative could be found from here. All taken by the same probe and in many cases of much better quality. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Doesn't meet the size requirements. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Impossible to retake. It's not every day you have a satellite fly past the sun and take pictures of sunspots. The uniqueness of this image is great enough for us to ignore the normal guidelines. After all, that's all they are: guidelines; not rules. Clegs (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No replacement available. Muhammad(talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least until a replacement can be found. Per WP:IAR --Janke | Talk 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep A stunner and a unique image, irreplacable. --Blechnic (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clegs. Dhatfield (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least until higher res is sourced Capital photographer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist This image does not meet the size requirements. It is totally reproducible, TRACE is an orbital telescope, not a spacecraft that flew by the sun. Also, this isn't a particularly impressive solar image compared to what's out there. Sure, this exact prominence was a long time ago and can't be retaken, but there are much more impressive prominences all the time. You could probably make a higher quality image with a consumer H-Alpha solar scope and a DSLR. But if you absolutely must have a TRACE image, I'm not sure of TRACE's tec specs, but I have a feeling a higher res version is available on their website. Or if not, they have newer images that are higher res. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Then replace it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to TOS, I actually went and checked the website and couldn't find a better/higher res image. I suspect others may have done the same, or we would have an alternative uploaded by now. Maybe you would like to retract your bold assertion in the absence of any supporting evidence? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Blech and PapaLima. The first thing I did was go to the website, and I was extremely unimpressed by the quality/subjects of the shots. And while, yes, this is an orbital telescope, it's still not every day the people running it decided to take pictures of solar anomalies, upload them to an easy-to-find place on the internet, and release them into the public domain. Clegs (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps if this were a "delist and replace" request, I would support delisting, but the uniqueness of the image makes me keep. Spencer^T♦C 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 10:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Passchendaele

Reason

Well below minimum size requirements at 500 × 674 pixels, file size: 290 KB. A 2004 promotion that's rightfully rated a Valued Image at Commons, but just isn't up to technical standards we expect of featured material. Although before/after aerial photography from this period is unusual, higher resolution imagery of World War I devastation isn't too hard to locate.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Village_of_Passchendaele

Nominator

Durova^Charge!

• Delist — Durova^Charge! 03:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to disagree, "higher resolution imagery of WWI devastaion" isn't competition for a before and after image of Battle of Passchendaele. The encyclopedic value of this paritcular pair of images is far higher than anything I've seen on FP thus far. --Blechnic (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I'm nominating an image of World War I the same day I'm starting a delisting request. There's a lot more in the archives waiting to be uploaded; standard minimum size for FP is 1000 pixels on the long axis. We can do better. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An image?" What image of WWI do you have that has the equivalent encyclopedic value of this? You got me curious. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until you get a higher resolution version of this image... --Janke | Talk 06:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Lille; 3,435 × 2,241 pixels, file size: 5.69 MB
• 
  French woman returns to find her home a heap of ruins; 3,200 × 4,096 pixels, file size: 4.83 MB
• 
  Étain; 3,037 × 715 pixels, file size: 1.63 MB
• 
  Richecourt; 2,626 × 703 pixels, file size: 1.37 MB
• 
  American Army field hospital, 1918; 1,536 × 1,216 pixels, file size: 820 KB

You asked for 'em. Now you restore 'em. Durova^Charge! 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these would even be mentioned in 10,000 years, while school children will still be studying the Battle of Passchendaele as the history of warfare in the 20th century as long as there are literate humans on this planet. This pair of images, as I said above, has the greatest encyclopedic value of any FP I have seen on Wikipedia thus far. I have to go with Janke, until you get a higher resolution version of this image, or something that tops it, or is even in the same ball park, I can't see delisting this image. It's encyclopedic value simply trumps anything wrong with it. PS The one on Verdun would be worth restoring, though, for its EV, should anyone have the inclination. Good find. --Blechnic (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like coaching in archival search techniques, Blechnic? Durova^Charge! 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer Durova. Archival searches can be a lot of work. I am a professional researcher, though, so I'll decline but thank you for the generous offer. --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very powerful image, I'd like to see a higher rez version before we delist this one. Clegs (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hey Durova. Are there larger versions of these files that you have found? I'm willing to give up a hand at restoring these images. A larger size would help a lot more. If there isn't an alternative just leave me a message on my tyalk page and I'll be happy to clean up and restore images that you feel are worthy of FPC or current FP that are in bad shape. victorrocha | Talk 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, any of these would be a technical improvement over the current featured picture. The Library of Congress has several others of comparable quality already available and would generate more and better scans for a fee. It's been four years since this image was promoted and online archives have come a long way in that time. Wikipedia's featured content standards have risen and we've been defeaturing older ones of this size and quality. Blechnic's first post to this nomination states that this isn't competition for a before and after image of Battle of Passchendaele. Well all right; here are six superior files ready for restoration. Featured picture removals don't customarily carry any expectation of replacement: if something better is available that's well and good, but the question is whether the candidate meets current FP standards. This particular one is typical of what we've been delisting lately. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we've delisted anything in the vicinity of this image, we were 100% wrong. This picture should not, under any circumstances, be delisted as a featured picture, in my opinion, because, as I've said before, it's encyclopedic value trumps any other FP I've seen ever on Wikipedia. It's a powerful image. Worth a thousand times a thousand words. None of the other images offered up are anywhere in the ballpark. Just to be clear, Durova, I only commented about alternatives because you include that in your delisting nomination, that high res WWI images are otherwise available. This simply isn't just an image. If it is available for higher resolution for a fee, e-mail me the information and I will pay the fee for a file for Wikipedia. This image is priceless. --Blechnic (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what you mean some of these pictures are quite small and the details are lost. If there are important pictures it would probably be best to restore them. Delisting is not too big of a deal however, It's just removing a tag not deleting the picture. If the picture is significant though I would like to help. I'll try my hand at the nominations you made in due time. victorrocha | Talk 04:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Precedent has it that size should not be the sole consideration in a delist nomination. This image is incredibly powerful and encyclopedic, so I think it deserves it's place as an FP. Besides, none of the other images proposed are as informative or effective. NauticaShades 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. By the way, if anyone is willing to spend ₤7.50, they can purchase the image from the Imperial War Museum. NauticaShades 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the resolution on the image from the Imperial War Museum? Is it significantly greater than the one we have already? (I'm a little busy for searching for information right now. Basically, is it worth it? I'll buy it if it is.) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC) --Blechnic (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was joking a little in my comment, but if you want to purchase it, go right ahead. I don't know what resolution they have, I suppose you'd have to email them to find out. If you did buy it, they'd probably send you a physical copy. Do you have a good scanner? NauticaShades 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until a better version of this image is found. Enc. value is much too high to give in to the size requirement. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-31 14:28Z
• Keep Aerial before-and-after portraits weren't exactly bountiful in World War I. Shii (tock) 20:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Although I agree that this has the potential to be a very valuable and interesting image, I can't see how it is useful in its present state. The top image shows some roads, some fields and what looks like some buildings. The bottom image shows nothing. In my opinion, the sentence "Some villages were completely destroyed by bombing." is just as useful. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the nothing in the bottom image is the whole point of it. In fact, it is. The sentence you use about "some villages were completely destroyed by bombing" is only used by you, so I'm not sure why you're saying it, then saying it's awful. If you don't say it, it's not necessary to discredit your own words. --Blechnic (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that it doesn't contribute much to any article. Criterion 5 is "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article." I fail to see how a picture showing nothing is better than simply saying it. It definitely is not "worth a thousand words" when I can describe the image perfectly and in its entirety in just a few sentences. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree so strongly on this that I don't see how the two of discussing it will reach common ground--which is cool. Most other editors posting here thus far see it my way, also, though, that the image of destruction is far more powerful than simply the words. There were other villages destroyed in wars in the twentieth century. Some of them are known only for the visual impacts they have made through art or photography. I think it's human nature to want to see the destruction for yourself, which is why we have war books including almost no text, just images. --Blechnic (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. There is no doubt that the events of Passchendaele were extremely important, and it would be wonderful to have a FP of the subject. This is a moving image, IMHO. However, the encyclopedic value of illustrating the destruction in this image is not particularly outstanding (it would be in the absence of other works), and the quality and size are well below what we accept, even taking into consideration the time and circumstances. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Turtle

Reason

There is a similar image, currently a FA candidate, of higher quality, greater encyclopedic value and higher resolution.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii turtle 2.jpg; Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Hawaii turtle

Nominator

J.T Pearson (talk)

• Delist — J.T Pearson (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist After that image that was taken by me, user OhanaUnited, I took few better IMO images of the same subject. The one is nominated to get FP status above. The second one, which I like better, if of course user OhanaUnited will allow to me like one of my own images better than the other one of my own images, is this one . It is of a higher resolution and IMO the background is better than in current FP. Please do not worry, if this current FP get delisted and a new one does not get promoted. After all FP is represented by quite a few images of the same common insects and two almost identicla images of Hong Kong, which IMO will compensate for not having an image of an endangered green turtle taken in their natural habitat. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I simply disagree that the newly nominated image is of higher quality (despite being shot with a better camera), and this one still meets the FP criteria. In terms of composition, it's no contest; this is by far the better shot.--ragesoss (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ragesoss. This has much better composition and is simply much nicer to look at, particularly because the whole shell is underwater and visible! Once again, no contest. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The encyclopedic angle of this picture is soo much better than the current FP nomination. The candidate looks like a snapshot with the subject cut off. This one meets criteria perfectly by today's standards. victorrocha (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that it is much better than the current nomination.--Avala (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per victorrocha. Let's say these both images are printed on an encyclopedia with the same dimension, I would say that this delisting candidate is better. --Base64 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The new candidate is not better, and at any rate, the fact that there is another candidate of the same subject is not a valid reason to delist this one. Clegs (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Athens

Reason

This is a curly one. The promoted image has been deleted as a copyright violation - see here for example, and also the Commons log. Somehow a low res version of the image now exists here (I don't know how it's not a copyright vio as well, there's something about it being non-Vatican I think), but it's below standard size requirements, is no longer in any articles, and has been removed from all FP galleries, e.g., here (though it does have the FP tag on the actual image, and the FP count still includes it). I'm inclined towards official delist due to its highly questionable status.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/school of athens (though perhaps this version of the nom is more informative).

Nominator

jjron (talk)

• Delist — jjron (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is removed from articles because CommonsDelinker only knows replace and remove pictures. It doesn't restore to original revision even if the image is later restored by an administrator (such as this case) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was tagged as copyvio in good faith by a contributor who found it at [10] and saw the copyright notice on the page, not understanding that PD-art is applicable here. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was a case of copyright confusion. The image is not, however, a copyvio, as far as commons or en.wiki policies are concerned. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A good illusion of three dimensionality. Not copyvio. Durova^Charge! 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See, I have a bit of a problem here. The 'big' version now reuploaded by Howcheng has been stitched from images supplied on the Vatican website. The Vatican website is pretty darn clear stuff on their website is copyrighted - see their copyright notice. So can all those voting to keep please explain to me how it's not a copyvio? --jjron (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the Vatican is engaging in copyfraud. Well, probably not willfully -- most likely they just have a blanket copyright notice and they don't bother to indicate which items are really in the public domain. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more details. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Howcheng said. This is a derivative reproduction of two dimensional art that's several centuries old. Copyright cannot attach. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see. Sounds like a good dodge around the copyright laws, about which I've previously expressed my dislike - but laws are laws... And if someone gets sued here, it won't be me :-). --jjron (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above argument. Spencer^T♦C 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If everyone is happy with the licensing, and now the 'big version' is back, I think the image can be returned to FP galleries (done) and articles (though I think that part's been done), and this delist can be closed. --jjron (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - concerns addressed. --jjron (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Portrait 2006.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2010 at 22:38:15 (UTC)

Reason

This image, while striking, is used only in Barack Obama economic policy, where its EV is not clear. Yes, a portrait has clear EV in the article on the subject, but it was decided a while ago by the editors of the article that this image did not have a place there, and the official portrait now leads. This was taken during a speech that is related to the subject matter of the article in which it is used, but that does not mean that the image automatically has EV- all this seems to be adding to the article is decoration, and decoration is not enough to justify a picture being featured.

Articles this image appears in

Barack Obama economic policy

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg

Nominator

J Milburn (talk)

• Delist — J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has EV in the current use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howso? What's it adding to the article? J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It contemporaneously depicts the proponent of the policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at it like this- if the coverage of Obama's economic policy was in main biography, this image would be a decorative image adding little there, as it would clearly be redundant to the lead image. In this case, it isn't- this is a decorative image adding little which is used in a different article. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a fantastic portrait, high quality like few others, interesting lighting and very appealing color scheme. It would be sad to see this go. --Dschwen 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a great portrait, yes, but that doesn't mean it automatically has EV. Discussion on the Barack Obama talk page has decided this is not the best image to show him- what does it add to the article on his economic policy? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Doesn't demonstrate a policy, as it's a portrait... If it's not a policy it can't be used in a policy article... But maybe I'm thinking a little too laterally... gazhiley.co.uk 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dschwen. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There's got to be a better picture of Obama out there, the glare is bad and he looks angry in this one. --I'ḏ♥One 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist a bad portrait... simply bad. Probably only promoted because of who he is without regard to image quality. — raekyt 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this lighting is very eye-catching and rare. Dramatic. I see no need to undo what was done. Greg L (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 602

Reason

I really hate to do this, but this image is really not that fantastic. It's not FP material, and even while it was at FPC it was doubted that it would pass. Low quality, should be replaced with better quality edit.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NGC 602

Nominator

—Sunday · (Testify!)

• Replace with edit— —Sunday · (Testify!) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you be more specific about the image's shortcomings? Chick Bowen 19:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep No good reason to delist, wouldn't pass today is a quite frankly crappy reason to nominate an image for delisting especially if you can't back it up with how specifically it fails to achieve the current FPC standards. As a matter of thoroughness I did a second look at it and I see no reason that it should be delisted on technical grounds or anything else. Cat-five - talk 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking at this point since the edit takes care of the noise and the blue glare but at the cost of the entire image being greatly softened so I'm going to withhold a vote on this. Cat-five - talk 01:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The partial grain removal in the edit distracts, and may have removed small details. --Janke | Talk 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tulipa suaveolens floriade to Canberra.jpg

Reason

Lack of background diffusion, distracting background elements (including flower that harms clarity of side of focal point flower), therefore I beleive it doesn't meet criteria 1 of FP "Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements."

Previous nomination/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Tulip

Nominator

Capital photographer (talk)

• Delist — Capital photographer (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is required to notify the original nominator of a delist nomination (User:Fir0002). I suggest you do that, it also would be good to notify the photographer, User:Jjron. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets all criteria. "including flower the harms clarity of side of focal point flower" is very confusing. de Bivort 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FP criteria states "...it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." The left side of the main Tulip in the image melds into a tulip of the same colour behind it. Therefore, the form/shape of the main tulip is not as clear IMO. Capital photographer (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO the image still meets all the criteria. Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Essentially per the above, it meets all the criteria and I see no reason to delist this. Cat-five - talk 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets all criteria and shows the leaves, which the new candidade doesn't -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep The nom is correct that the outline of the main bloom is partially obscured, but I don't think it's a fatal flaw. Find a better one then get rid of this one. Matt Deres (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria, IMO this one is better than the new nom, main tulip is sharper here, even though edge blends slightly into bg. --Janke | Talk 18:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all above - particularly since it shows the leaves --Fir0002 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good quality, and shows both flowers, buds and leaves. Sharper than the new nom. Narayanese (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - image does not fail to show what a tulip looks like --T-rex 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, is more enc and sharper than the new nom. Mfield (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. Perhaps a bit unnecessary given the other generous comments above, but this still strikes me as one of the best flower photos on Wikipedia, clearly meeting all criteria. And would have been nice to be notified of the nom here, as per the clearly stated delist criteria. --jjron (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling thunder cloud

Reason

Very low resolution, fails number 2 Criteria

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/August-2004#Rolling_thunder_cloud

Nominator

MakE ^shout!

• Delist — MakE ^shout! 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous delist nominations: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Rolling thunder cloud, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Thunder cloud. MER-C 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep yet AGAIN as per my reasons on all the other delist noms - nothing's changed since May. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, again. Criteria 2 says: Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired. - I certainly would call this "unique". --Janke | Talk 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please provide some sources that show that the type of cloud depicted in this picture are rare or even uncommon Thisglad (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather awkward to prove a negative - the burden is on someone to show that we can get better. The previous nom included a discussion on this issue (as you know since you contributed to it), with no one able to proffer better, or to be honest anything close to the impact of this, regardless of licensing concerns. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The low resolution criteria is not enough reason to remove this picture, if not unique it depicts a non very common image with no know substitute so far.--Jf268 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delist, this simply doesn't meet my FP expectations at all. It's not just low resolution, it fills less than a quarter of my monitor and that doesn't help with being heavily artifacted and not sharp enough. People, we have technical requirements here, and this photograph is nowhere near fulfilling them! It has twice been on the Main Page, one can say that it has done its job already. It may have a bit of a "wow factor", but it's not really unique and it doesn't represent our best work at all. Todor→Bozhinov 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It wouldn't pass today, but aside from size it stands up well to current standards. We should respect the judgments of past years' FPC contributors, to a reasonable extent.--ragesoss (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strelitzia larger

Reason

Great picture at thumb view, but at full the edges are jagged, and it's noisy.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Strelitzia

Nominator

Hypershadow647 (talk)

• Delist — Hypershadow647 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You can find the nom here here. The jaggies are strange, but this is over four years old - maybe it's a camera problem? Good otherwise, so I dunno... --Janke | Talk 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There have been plenty of featured pics removed for the reason that they are outdated in terms of quality, so I don't see age as a valid point unless it holds some historical significance. Thanks for the link, updated.Hypershadow647 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 07:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater Causeway

Reason

The original version is more asthetically pleasing and gives more context to the bridge location.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bridgewater Bridge

Nominator

Noodle snacks (talk)

• Delist and Replace — Noodle snacks (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace per nom. The fuzz in the grass doesn't bother me. --Janke | Talk 13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace. As per my support in its original nomination. I like the context it provides. Spencer^T♦C 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The foreground IMO isn't very aesthetic - in fact I'd prefer it if this pano had been taken from the little pier on the left and the foreground completely done away with. Also given that this was closed only a month ago, it might be a good idea to let the people who voted for the cropped version know about this delist nom... --Fir0002 04:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Personally I prefer the non cropped one, but this was just voted on and consensus preferred the crop. Nothing else has changed. Mfield (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at a nomination, A couple of people prefered the crop, but the majority of votes supported the original version. I don't consider this a consensus. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the decision looks borderline. There were mentions of problems in the foreground before the crop and votes that didn't get changed after the crop was added. Really this should have been given extra time for consensus during its FP nom. Mfield (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restitched this and uploaded over the original (before the nomination), but the restitch was probably worse. Dschwen later undid it in the german FPC nomination. The grass is better in the reverted version so it isn't entirely the same as the one in the fpc nom. Therefore its probably worth a look since it fixes some of the crop people's complaints. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer plowing

Reason

The image look really nice, but its quality is not as good as the image has noise.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horse and Plough

Nominator

Diego_pmc ^Talk

• Delist — Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good shot, well composed, I can't immediately see what is 'horrid' about the quality. Perhaps you could be more specific? --jjron (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, have you notified the original nominator and/or creator? I can't quite see where in your edit history. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is quite noisy—probably caused by sharpening (it is most obvious around the edges). I have notified the original nominator, thanks for the reminder. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see the noise. The quality of the central subject is quite enough. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A delist was previously proposed here [11] with a unanimous keep. --Bridgecross (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I like the composition; it shows the action of plowing and the effort of the driver. --Bridgecross (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw Diego_pmc ^Talk 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Roving Vehicle

Reason

Cleaned up the original photo, removed some scratch like articfacts, crosses, improved colour, reduced blown white. In my opinion, the new version is superior in quality and would like to delist and replace the original.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NASA Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle

Nominator

Seddσn ^talk

• Delist and Replace — Seddσn ^talk 02:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Better, but there are still a bunch of scratches near the wheel to our right and its shadow. You missed at least one crosshair there, too.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 3 additional crosshairs. Seddσn ^talk 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace I still encourage you to try to get more scratches out, but it's clearly superior to the original.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How do we feel really about the reticles/fiducials/crosshairs. I actually think they add enc value to the image, being in every image that was shot using the lunar cameras which all had Reseau plate fitted. I kind of get a bad feeling about them being removed, it seems a step further than merely restoration.. Mfield (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• D & R Per reasons given in nom. Cat-five - talk 01:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep until I hear a good reason for removal of the reticles per my comment above. Mfield (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whatever you do, do not remove the reticle crosses! They are an integral part of all the space-Hasselblad shots! --Janke | Talk 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the crosshairs are an important part of the pictures. Lorax (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bird beaks named

Reason

Because an earlier version of Image:BirdBeaksA.svg was had items numbered rather than labelled, the herewith nominated image was made an FP to replace the numbered version. However, Shyamal subsequently uploaded an more comprehensive and labelled version at the original place, Image:BirdBeaksA.svg. Since the original concerns have been addressed, and the new version is more comprehensive than Jeff Dahl's branch of it, the trunk should now replace the temporal branch (I hope you can follow) as to FP status. Separa (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

Separa (talk)

• Delist and replace — Separa (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. Spikebrennan (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. Clegs (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Second chart is better. --Sharkface217 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced MER-C 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustard Edit

• Versions
• 
  Edit Noise reduction and lightening of background
• 
  Edit 2 Noise reduction only
• 
  Unedited Version

Reason

OK in the interests of transparency as per discussion here I'll do a renom. Note this version had already been promoted over the original by MER-C, however this got reverted because some users felt the original had the majority of support in the original nom. So just to make it clear to everyone this picture is already a FP and this nomination is only here to choose between the versions - if you don't think this image should be an FP you'll need to nominate it for delisting

Articles this image appears in

Mustard (condiment) (if promoted)

Creator

Rainer Zenz edited by Fir0002

• Speedy Replace with Edit Obvious improvement Fir0002 09:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The edit has reduced noise, but I prefer the shading in the original. The edit looks more flat and edited than the original does, and the noise is only in the white background, so doesn't effect the actual subject much. Is there a way to reduce the noise but keep the shading the same. At the moment I think I prefer the original over the edit because of this. Chris_huh^talk 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I could probably do that - I'll try do it sometime today --Fir0002 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That looks better, i Support the edit2 without the lightening alteration. Chris_huh^talk 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As far as I know this is not the right place to propose a replacement. And the FP is the original, not the edited version, otherwise nothing of this makes sense -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, Oppose edit - The original should have been promoted, not the edit. People may vote in an seemingly inconsistent fashion, but that's no reason to promote an edit that people didn't really consider. -- RM 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The original IS FP, now this edit is done, which is why we vote here, and since the edit is better, Support Edit Yzmo ^talk 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: RM "there's no reason to promote an edit that people didn't really consider"... that's entirely the point of this nomination. Consider the edit now! What should/shouldn't have happened is entirely irrelevant --Fir0002 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll admit, I don't know if there is still controversy over this issue, but I prefer the original. Comparing them at the same magnification, I prefer the original's level of contrast. -- RM 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Weak oppose for the moment - the lightening in the edit seems to have caught the edges of some of the mustards where they come near to or over the edge of the spoon - most obviously the very tip of the bottom left mustard has gone grey-green; less obviously so have the top-left and bottom-right edges of the middle right mustard, and very marginally the top-left of the top-right mustard. I appreciate this is a tricky task, and the error is by no means huge; but perhaps enough at the moment to make me marginally prefer the original, as the shading and noise reduction only affect the background so don't affect encyclopedicity, whereas the errors affect the subject. If these things can be fixed I do marginally prefer the new shading, and getting rid of the background noise is good. TSP (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 2, second preference original - as I say, I'd be happy with the lightening, but the colour alteration to the edges of some of the mustards isn't worth it. TSP (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Edit (as done in original promotion, and as is standard practice to promote an obviously improved version of an image). --jjron (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2, second preference original as per TSP. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Edit. Better version. Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 2 - Just barely...the lightened one is too much change. pschemp | talk 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:Senf-Variationen edit2.jpg. MER-C 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben Clock Tower

Reason

In the recent nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Big Ben on blue sky a reprocessed version of the current FP was introduced fairly late in the discussion. Once the new version was introduced there seemed to be a fairly strong consensus, including from the photographer, to replace the current version with the update, however the original was kept. I'm thus proposing a Delist of the current FP to be Replaced with the reprocessed version. Note this is not a discussion to delist the current FP, only to change the version that is featured.

Nominator

jjron (talk)

• Delist and replace. Note, this is not just a delist nom. — jjron (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delist and replace, per nom Clegs (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep original. I like the darker sky much more, and especially near the top the original seems a bit sharper. Also if the sky actually was dark blue, no reason to change it just for aesthetics :D\=< (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for Diliff to drop by, but he says on the previous nom linked above where he offered this version "...I think the sky was actually not quite as dull in the original as it seems (poor processing in the first place on my part, I think)...". He also says here "...it is my preference to replace the old version as I think it is a bit dull and not as representative of the conditions that day.". --jjron (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep original Per above. The darker sky looks much better. —αἰτίας •discussion• 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep original. The darker sky looks fine. Kaldari (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist/replace If you carefully read the above comments and the details of the original nom, the reprocessed version is more accurate and truthful. Like the red newt nom from a while back, the fact that the dark sky color is more appealing is immaterial, given that it is false and a result of processing/manipulation. --Malachirality (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you view the whole thing in the thumbnail, it's kind of washed out.. the bright stone of the tower really contrasts sharply against the dark sky. The lighter sky sort of blends into it :D\=< (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delist and replace the reprocessed version looks much more natural to me Mfield (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace per earlier discussion. --Janke | Talk 06:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep original - I like the darker sky. It makes the golden colour of the tower stand out better. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep edit The dark background takes away from the overall quality, imo. crassic!^[talk] 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and replace crassic!^[talk] 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and replace Looks better. ^8thstar 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced MER-C 09:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Baths of Bath, England

Reason

Firstly, yes, this is already a FP, but I was never really happy with the sky (too pale and slightly purple), the colour of the water (too green) or the contrast. I've been going through some of my old work and improving on it where possible, putting more time into it and using new techniques. I think I've been able to improve significantly on the colour reproduction and contrast of this shot. I'm not sure what we eventually decided last time this issue was raised, but I'm proposing that if this version is supported, we replace the old FP with it. From memory, consensus seemed to point towards doing it all within this nomination, but I'm not fussed.

For the record, the original nomination is here.

Oh, and rather than adding a new image, I've overwritten the original image that was not promoted (an edit was eventually promoted). I noticed that Mediawiki seems to be displaying the old thumbnail still. Be sure to load the full image to compare. It should be visibly different, probably even from the thumbnail.

Articles this image appears in

None as yet, but thecurrent FP is in Tourism, Aquae Sulis, Bath and North East Somerset, Thermae, Roman Baths (Bath) and History of Somerset.

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please purge the generated thumbnails when doing a comparison between old and new files. Otherwise it is misleading due to the changed thumbnail generation parameters which apply a sharpening filer now. --Dschwen 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't aware of how previously, although I've tried following those steps and I'm still seeing the old thumbnail of the proposed replacement. Hmm. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it kicked in and is displaying ok now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support replacement. WP:BYPASS. I was talking of the thumbnail of the to-be-replaced version, and I already purged that one :-). I like new version for its better projection (showing slightly more of the buildings) and removal of the grayish haze. --Dschwen 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah right. Yeah, I could have included slightly more of the building but I couldn't get rid of a parallax-induced stitching error on the arch, and cropped it out instead. ;-) Yeah, some of my old photos do have a bit of a 'haze' - it was my inexperience in squeezing dynamic range out of a RAW file. The result was often poor contrast. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what are you doing differently now? --Dschwen 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement New one is indeed much better - already as a thumb. --Janke | Talk 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement New one is great, even looking at the thumb, colours are richer and the definition far greater. Capital photographer (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think consensus was to do a "Delist and replace" as I did recently with your Big Ben image. Anyway, I guess it gets more traffic up here... --jjron (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement Replacement is just MUCH better quality. crassic!^[talk] 21:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Replacement. An improvement on an already impressive picture. NauticaShades 22:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A nice improvement on a great picture. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replacement Much better quality, richer and deeper colors, sharper, etc. The original FP is good, this one is excellent. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace better colours and more realistic --H92110 (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Replacement And I'm liking the facial hair in your new picture. ;-) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Replacement —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Replacement - no question. Motmit (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In both the current FP and the proposed replacement, some of the the (upper left to lower right) lines in the building to the left look curved. Is this unavoidable? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure specifically which lines you refer to, but yes, any curved lines are due to the projection used. Rectilinear projection would protect the straight lines but distort the view too much. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to the "bottom" of the triangular pediment, and the top and bottom of the tiled roof. Your explanation makes sense, though. Support replacement. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think the colours are too bold, and don't look natural. The original is therefore better in my opinion. 84.69.242.57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support replace. the new is slightly better than the old, but slightly better is still better. Spinach Dip 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:Roman Baths in Bath Spa, England - July 2006.jpg. MER-C 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colibri thalassinus

Reason

I would like to replace the image to the edited version. The original image is too tight crop.

Nominator

Laitche

• Delist and replace to the edited version. Laitche (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. Edit has a much better crop. Unsigned message by User:Clegs oops :-) Clegs (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Per nom. Nice shot, by the way. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. What they said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. What Papa Lima says they said. ^8thstar 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. What 8thstar says Papa Lima Whiskey says they said. Matt Deres (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. What Matt Deres says 8thstar says Papa Lima Whiskey says they said. Spencer^T♦C 14:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. What... never mind. NauticaShades 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Another pile-on vote. :) This is just a great photo, in either instance. crassic!^[talk] 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Be kiss'd and rejoice. What Papa Lima Whiskey was ever so touched they say he said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace - Per above, and above that, and above that etc... ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 09:17, 20 May 2008

(UTC)

• Delist and Replace - What a difference a very slight change of cut makes. Brilliant transformation - it should be kept and put up as an example Motmit (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:Colibri-thalassinus-001-edit.jpg. MER-C 12:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapon

Reason

Fails size requirement, not very informative (and SVG preferred).

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Happy to replace once there's an SVG version with English labels rather than numbers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have uploaded a version with English labels but every time illustrator opened the original file, there was a slight color change in the gun barrel. Muhammad(talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed image to simplify this process. Muhammad(talk) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist original, replace with numbered version, Oppose English labeled version. Much better to have the labels in the caption, that way the same Commons image can be used for many languages. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're in the wrong place. This is not Commons. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks for taking note. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uploaded a version with the gradient preserved (labeled v. 2). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, the original version has the components in reverse order. I don't know whether this makes any difference. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the question of the elements being in the reversed order, for an encyclopedia in my opinion it doesn't matter, but amongst purists they now think (as of only a few years ago) that the elements go in the reverse order than the original. See the Little Boy article for more information. --Fastfission (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the 4th one - Iranium? That's either a whole new element or a really bad political joke. Mfield (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ah! This was made a FP almost four years ago now! How our standards have changed, mostly for the better. I'm fine with de-listing it, to be honest. This version is not even used in any articles anymore. If you are going to make a new SVG version with English language, please take care to spell the component names correctly. --Fastfission (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, because you're so busy helping out? Takes two minutes to download and edit in Inkscape if you're a creature with opposable thumbs. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed it. Mfield (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Mfield. Kudos for stepping in. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace. I prefer The third SVG version myself. NauticaShades 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wasn't a fan of the original, but I think the cyan lines are very intrusive compared to the original lines. What do you think? I just can't imagine this one passing today if it were a fresh nom. Pstuart84 Talk 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree on the lines, I created Version 5 just to confuse things even more. Mfield (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like it might not be using a web safe font in the SVG versions. Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed V5 to use web safe Arial instead, the original SVG was in Bitstream Vera Sans which whilst it's a great free font, is far from web safe. Mfield (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace with v5. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace ^8thstar 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace with v5. Teque5 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace with v5 Mfield (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why does this remind me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? MER-C 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repaced with Image:Gun-type fission weapon en-labels thin lines.svg. MER-C 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury

Reason

A larger, color version of the same image is now available. Original nominator notified.

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Replace — howcheng {chat} 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with edit 1 Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional replace with Edit 1 or Edit 2 if cropped to a square like the original photo. (I think a square crop for objects like this would be easier to use in articles.) Thanks for the heads-up, Howcheng. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree in principle, although I don't think the crop of the "original" was particularly lucky either. I think the dark side should be fully contained in the frame, with an appropriate margin, so that image is centred on the actual centre of the planet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What he said. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace I believe the square crop is claustrophobic and not ideal for illustrating things in space. A wider aspect ratio provides more context and is more pleasant to the eye. The wide crop also allows people who use the image (for presentations, in publications) more freedom to present it as they wish. Capital photographer (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Capital photographer on this; I can't speak directly for how well the thumbnail fits into the article either way, but I do find the wider shot more pleasing to the eye. YMMV, I guess. Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think that most people who produce presentations and publications would be competent enough to add whichever amount of black space they need around the object, by themselves. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uploaded Edit1. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with Edit1. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace I'm leaning towards edit 1, but Capital Photographer presents a good argument.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the original with lots of space is always there. Its not being deleted, and the edit by jjron has a link to the original uncropped image. Muhammad(talk) 11:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace with Edit 1. The crop allows more detail in the thumbnail. NauticaShades 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I removed edit 2 as it turned out to be very similar to edit 1. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace with Edit 1. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace with edit 1, Though Capital Photographer makes a good point. Spencer^T♦C 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Image:Mercury in color - Prockter07-edit1.jpg. MER-C 03:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping koala

Reason

High resolution encyclopedic image. Supplements existing koala FP Image:Koala climbing tree.jpg by showing the species at sleep in a well-composed shot.

Articles this image appears in

koala

Creator

Sanjay ach

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Excellent image! This is highly focused and highly encyclopedic. I just love the detail in the fur. Elephantissimo (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: per Commons:Aww, aint it cute...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large, technically sound image which is is a good illustration of what the animal spends most of its time doing. Slightly blown areas (or is it my monitor?) on the arm don't detract. Guest9999 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Very nice, catchy image, with lots of details of the koala, fur, claws, varying textures, depth, in a typical activity. Did you pay it for the pose? --Blechnic (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was going to compensate it in eucalyptus leaves, but then I docked its pay for sleeping on the job. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Everyone seems to be rather overlooking this almost identical existing FP. Now there's no rule about not having two FPs of the same topic, but when they're this similar? Can I suggest this should have been done as a "Delist and Replace", especially given the existing one seems to have been dumped from all articles? --jjron (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like them both. Why was the other one, which shows more of the face, dumped from all articles? --Blechnic (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who knows? You'd have to go back through the histories, and maybe find a reason. I notice Durova replaced another picture with her nomination in the article here just before nominating, and quite likely someone else replaced the existing FP with the one Durova replaced. Incidentally, the one Durova replaced was put up for FPC last July - see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Koala sleeping. --jjron (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This image is better than the one it replaced in the article, which is appropriate, but that's kinda sideways to the question of why the other FP, so similar to this one, is still a FP, but has been removed from articles. Koals are, imo, just too damn cute. And these pictures take the cake. But, they are similar enough that there should only be one or the other, and while the one is right now a FP, this second should not be nominated, or the nomination should be a choice of which one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I did notice the one this replaced was a previous FPC. IMO this has better composition and color, as well as very good file size. Hadn't noticed the other sleeping koala that passed (why are koalas so darn cute?) Should I nom that for delist? Durova^Charge! 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not just koalas, all Australians are that cute ;-). Anyway, as I said above, this whole nom should probably be a "Delist and Replace". --jjron (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The cute factor is because they sleep so much. Are Australians sleepy people :)? Muhammad(talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Or are you suggesting we're only cute when asleep? :-) --jjron (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't this be a replace nomination? I don't see how one of these two possibly has any additional EV over the other, as they're exactly the same pose, against the same background. And in reply to jjron, yes there is a rule. A picture must add value to an article. If two pictures are the same, one of them doesn't add value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally I agree with this, the pictures are just too close for both to be in an article, and for both to be FP is not possible. I like the claws in the current nomination, but like the face in the current FP. I don't care which one is it, but there has to be just one. Durova, I think this needs withdrawn, then decide how to handle it. I vote support for whichever cute as hell sleeping koala is nominated. --Blechnic (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should keep in mind that one of them is already an FP and doesn't need to be renominated. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That'a correct, that's why i think Durova needs to simply withdraw this one to start with. If he/she then wants to nominate the second one that can be done, along with withdrawing the existing one, but this FPC should be stopped, until some decision is made. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I pointed out originally there's no rule to not have two FPs of the same topic (or in this case three, given the Diliff one that Durova originally linked to), but these two are rather too similar and should not both be featured. That being said they are not both illustrating the same article (one is illustrating no articles), but it is possible they could both be featured if they both successfully illustrated different articles. --jjron (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Replacement - the background of the nomination is more natural. Cacophony (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it looks like the lesson of this nomination is to let sleeping koalas lie! If I'd realized we already had a sleeping koala FP I would have started this differently. Apologies there. The proposed version is about ten times the file size of the current FP. So I'll follow whatever is the most advisable course: move this to delist/replace? Suspend this nom for a delist vote? To any bold admin who wanders by, here's your chance to be bold. I pre-approve any reasonable solution you think of. :) Durova^Charge! 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also hereby pre-approve any workable solution that makes the issue more clear cut, and hereby cast my support vote for whichever cute little koala gets FP status. --Blechnic (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Promote and Replace. The image currently undergoing FPC of higher quality and composition than the current FP. NauticaShades 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Promote and replace. Probably the best way forward for this nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace The candidate has better background and resolution than the current featured picture. Narayanese (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]