Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2013

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

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

Retained[edit]

Narbonne Cathedral D&R[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 09:58:46 (UTC)

Reason: Just promoted, but was underexposed. Edit was added at the end of the nomination but there wasn't time for participants to consider.
Articles this image appears in: Narbonne Cathedral
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Narbonne Cathedral
Nominator: Jujutacular (talk)

Delist & Replace with edit 1 — Jujutacular (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R. Edit has more pop with no notable degradation in quality. I'm not sure I would have supported this originally, but given its recent promotion we may as well put up the better version. --jjron (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Frankly, the edit looks unnaturally bright to me. The original seems natural lighting, this feels like the cathedral has been moved to Arizona or another area noted for its dryness that lets more sunlight through. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The brightness of the shot is the result of a combination of things. The scene itself decides the distribution of brightness throughout the frame. The photographer decides the correct exposure to get the brightness of the frame well distributed on the image. Please look at the histogram of the original image. It is literally flat-lined at the top, no information -- it was incorrectly exposed when the picture was taken. Jujutacular (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every image should use all levels of brightness, however. As a simple example, an image of a room filled with dark oak panels probably is going to tend towards the darker side, whilst a close-in shot showing detail in the White Cliffs of Dover is going to be mostly white. The real world doesn't always use the complete brightness spectra, and neither should we. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An image of a room filled with dark oak panels should tend towards the darker side, but it should not be completely flat-lined at the top. At least, not for an encyclopedic photograph. If we wanted to be artistic that would be another matter. Likewise, an image of the white cliffs of Dover should tend towards the brighter side, but should not be flat-lined on the darker side. The image at hand, should definitely not be flat at the bright side of the spectrum, it is a picture taken out in the open in midday. Jujutacular (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. There's a gradual trailing off in the upper range, as one would expect in an image that isn't over exposed. It doesn't "flat line", it just doesn't have a LOT of bright whites. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson 1983[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 16:00:37 (UTC)

Reason: At the original nomination, concerns were raised that this had been overly downsampled. I think those concerns were correct. There is plenty of information in the original that was lost. The fact that the film grain is visible does not mean we have reached the point where there is no more information; film grain, after all, is not uniformly colored. I have started over from the original LOC file, cloned out all dust, and cropped to the borders of the exposed part of the negative. I rotated it according to the original negative frame; the original photograph is tilted, and lining it up with the pipe on the wall at right as a frame of reference would mean either including a sliver of the negative frame in the image or cutting off more of the good reverend's shoulder.
Articles this image appears in: Jesse Jackson, Rainbow/PUSH, many more
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jesse Jackson 1983
Nominator: Chick Bowen

Delist and replace — Chick Bowen 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a lossless version? You left a few dust specks that'd be worth editing out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I went over it again and uploaded it over the top. Chick Bowen 15:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support I noted a single speck more, but it really doesn't matter. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just logged into Commons for the first time in a while and saw your note there--I've uploaded another version over the top again. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R per the above. Cat-five t c ---- 00:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note, since there's been no movement on this for a while, that Adam Cuerden decided to list it in the main FPC list in addition to the delists, since it's a significant revision to the original, and that I have no objection to this, but I wanted to explain it, if it confuses people why it's there. Also, in addition to what I note above, I'd add that my crop is a bit more generous, and I think this improves the composition by placing the face in line with the rule of thirds (roughly). I'm not trying to beg for votes here, just wondering at the lack of interest. I recognize the changes here are subtle, but I do think they're significant if you look closely. Anyway, sorry to belabor the point--carry on. Chick Bowen 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching Nanga Parbat[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 23:07:57 (UTC)

This panorama was taken on the way to the base camp of Nanga Parbat, also known as the "killer mountain". At 8,125 metres (26,658 feet), it is the 9th highest peak of the world and the 2nd highest peak in Pakistan. The base camp is about a kilometer's trek from here. One glacier is visible on the right side, another glacier can be seen building on the left side.

Reason: Stitching errors, particularly on the left side, showing as translucent, "ghost" images of the mountains intruding into the sky. The edited version is here primarily for comparison, as I don't think what I did, which is cloning out the ghosts is the best solution; it really should be restitched from the original individual photographs. Also, the vertical size is below current size requirements, though within them at the time of nomination. However, the edited version is probably better than what we have now.
Articles this image appears in: Nanga Parbat
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:ApproachingNangaParbat.JPG
Nominator: Chick Bowen

Stitching errors removed through cloning.

Delist; ~~tentative replace~~ — Chick Bowen 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit should really be for replacing in articles only; I wouldn't claim it as FP quality, as I say above. Chick Bowen 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace. I believe there's other stitching errors and ghosting still remaining that won't all be easy to fix. As you say it really needs a careful restitch from originals. Seems to be one of those cases where an early comment/vote on the foreground hill being a distraction led to basically a referendum on that issue, with the technical issues being overlooked. And while resolution isn't a delist issue, note that a height of 900px was really on the small side even when this was nominated. --jjron (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps I should have said, agree with replacing article usage with the edit. --jjron (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace with quick edit This should really be replaced with a properly done fix, as Jjron said one that's been restitched from the originals, but barring that it should be delisted. Cat-five t c ---- 06:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 portrait of Barack Obama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 07:12:15 (UTC)

Reason: This image is now used only incidentally in 2 articles and not in anywhere near prime placement which all but negates it's EV. Another better image (Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barack_Obama_Portrait) was put forward and shot down and this image survived a delisting nomination for lack of a better alternative, which requires nonlinear logic to understand considering the other images of the President.
Articles this image appears in: Economic policy of Barack Obama and Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011.
Previous nomination/s: nomination - Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Obama_Portrait_2006_trimmed.jpg
delist attempt - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Nominator: Cat-five t c ----

Delist — Cat-five t c ---- 07:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasons given (the stark lighting and the limited EV in particular). [For the record, I know this isn't a D&R but if Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Barack Obama Portrait was relisted I think I would support. I don't agree with the opposing comments there.] Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'll grant that this photograph has some shortcomings, but I just don't see better ones on Commons that are comparable. I don't think a formal portrait is comparable to a candid, journalistic shot of a speech. As for EV, the image is of Obama delivering a speech on energy policy, and it illustrates a section on energy policy. So EV seems pretty high to me. Chick Bowen 21:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist almost no EV in articles it's in, can EASILY be replaced with any other photograph for him in them, and a more official portrait would be probably preferable, or one after he became president than this one for those articles. Awkward facial expression, again I don't like photos of people with their mouth open while talking. — raeky t 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At least 5 supports are needed for delisting too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Library in Bulgaria[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2013 at 23:02:12 (UTC)

Reason: Deleted on Commons as a violation of Freedom of Panorama (here). We could have the uploader upload the picture locally, however, as we only need it to be free in the US.
Articles this image appears in: None, now
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/National Library - Sofia.jpg
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of our Commons admins (Milburn?) could download this from here and reupload it locally. We might want to have a delist discussion anyway--though various images that fall under FOP restrictions in their home countries are hosted here using the {{FoP-USonly}} tag, I don't believe we have any featured (correct me if I'm wrong), and we'd have to discuss whether it would meet criterion 4. Chick Bowen 03:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I now see I'm mistaken on the latter point: File:Moscow State University crop.jpg is an example. Chick Bowen 04:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, basically. If Milburn or another Commons admin does that, this can be closed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I'm not willing to do this, as I feel that our incredibly inconistent FOP rules are ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - To make clear; I do not believe we actually have any FOP rules, just a variety of people pushing their own ideas of how it should work. At least the Commons rules are clear. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Understood. Conditional delist, then, withdrawn obviously if circumstances change. Chick Bowen 17:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been fixed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok skytrain sunset[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2013 at 22:56:49 (UTC)

Reason: While the image has a striking appearance due to the dramatic sunset, its technical quality no longer meets the minimum requirement for Featured Picture status since it has very small dimensions and has some image noise. It is not even 1 megapixel. Such a picture should be replaceable with a photo taken from the same vantage point during a similar sunset using more modern equipment. The encyclopedic value is also diminished because in the almost ten years since this picture's promotion, new tall buildings have been constructed that would be visible from this location today, such as the W Bangkok. As such, it represents a very outdated view of the rapidly developing city.
Articles this image appears in: Bangkok, Emergence, Golden hour (photography), List of national capitals in East, South, and Southeast Asia, List of neighbourhoods in Bangkok, Urban ecosystem; Empire Tower, Bangkok (a crop thereof); Robot Building (a crop thereof).
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg (A delist for this image was suggested in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Auditorio de Tenerife although it was not actually nominated for delisting)
Nominator: dllu (t,c)

Delist — dllu (t,c) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the only legitimate reason for delisting above would be the outdated skyline. I don't think there's any significant noise in the photo (it was taken at ISO400 and is downsampled, which minimises visible noise anyway), and we've already agreed that with recent increases in minimum resolution required, we aren't going to apply it retrospectively to existing FPs. But otherwise fair enough, I've never had the opinion that a FP should be for life. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I do not feel that such a small picture of something so large is appropriate. Regardless of minimum sizes and so on, this is too small for a picture of a skyline. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can easily upload a 6 megapixel version of it (perhaps slightly less as it might be cropped), but I think it was a bit motion blurred as I took the photo stretched out of a window to get this view. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should upload the 6 megapixel version. As per Image guidelines, "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality)." dllu (t,c) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure those guidelines didn't exist in that form at the time of upload, but yeah no reason not to upload at max res these days. I've uploaded the original 6MP image over the top of it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have struck out the part about the minimum size. However, my delist still stands because of the outdated skyline. dllu (t,c) 01:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seeing the skyline change can itself be useful. If it stops being used in articles, then we can reconsider. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just replaced it with File:Allianz Arena zu verschiedenen Zeiten.jpg at Golden hour (photography) because the new picture seems more didactic. JKadavoor Jee 06:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've misunderstood what golden hour is... The image you replaced it with doesn't illustrate golden hour well at all in my opinion. Golden hour refers to the golden hue of sunlight in the first and last hour of daylight. None of the individual photos illustrate it well. In fact the middle photo which is labelled golden hour is taken after sunset during the blue hour - this is clear by the very blue hue of the image. The first image is the closest to golden hour, but it's a poor example as there is very little of the typical golden sunlight in the photo - it's more of a pale yellow. I've reverted. There must be thousands and thousands of more representative images that could illustrate the article. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK; I respect your opinion. But people at de:Wikipedia:Kandidaten_für_exzellente_Bilder/Archiv2008/8#Allianz_Arena_in_M.C3.BCnchen_.28Zusammenstellung.29_.E2.80.93_22._April_bis_zum_6._Mai_-_Pro had a different opinion. JKadavoor Jee 16:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see anyone in the discussion you linked to talking about the golden hour, but I don't speak German so I had to use google translate and perhaps I missed something. But anyway, IMO you only have to read the golden hour article to realise that it doesn't illustrate well what the article describes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airfield traffic pattern.svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2013 at 17:37:32 (UTC)

Reason: The diagram is misleading, incomplete, and incorrect. Compare to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Airport_Traffic_Pattern_with_Upwind_Leg.svg which correctly places the upwind leg.

It is not among Wikipedia's best work. It is a diagram which is a poor example of the subject. Superior diagrams exist in the public domain. It illustrates the subject in a controversial and complex yet incomplete way, leaving the viewer with questions about how a circuit is defined, entered, and exited. It is not verifiable. It is contradicted by facts in the article and by references cited; it is not from a source noted for its accuracy. It was created based on original research and subsequently modified pursuant to arguments on this nomination page. See Wikipedia:NOR#Original images.

Articles this image appears in: ~~Airfield traffic pattern, Final approach (aviation), Non-towered airport~~.
Previous nomination/s
Nominator: 75.210.97.82 (talk)

Delist — 75.210.97.82 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nomination corrected/added on behalf of 75.210.97.82 (talk · contribs). Note that neither the nominator (Ceejayoz) nor the uploader (Ericg) have edited within the last year. --auburnpilot talk 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (Chapter 13, page 12-13) and the Aeronautical Information Manual (4-3-1, Components of a Traffic Pattern), 75.210.97.82 is correct in stating that this image is not accurately labeled. I've included a depiction of left and right hand traffic patterns found in the Handbook. The leg of the pattern labeled "upwind" is actually defined as the "departure" leg. --auburnpilot talk 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't know it it was the right thing to do (and shoot me if it wasn't) but I edited the source file on the Commons to change "Upwind" to "Departure" and tidied the 3D shadow effect a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) [Updated] Happy to make any other changes needed, e.g. adding the upwind loop, if any get agreed here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Are we certain we're not just enforcing an American bias, by insisting on American terminology, or is upwind called departure worldwide? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain precisely how we are "enforcing an American bias" by delisting as a featured image an image which illustrates a uniquely American pattern using only American terminology? 75.210.240.193 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be slightly odd if the "departure leg" was referred to as "departure" when the aircraft flying it was not departing. Both terms are correct, depending on context; an aircraft taking off or making touch-and-goes would make "departure" correct, while in the latter case it could also be "upwind" - as it would be for an aircraft arriving and making a full pattern. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Final and Departure are in line with the runway. Upwind and Downwind are parallel to but offset from the runway. The Departure leg can be flown only by an aircraft on climb out. The Final Approach leg can be flown only by an aircraft intending to land (or to make a low pass over the runway). See [1] for a diagram. 75.208.82.237 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard both depending on the activity of the aircraft. The terms crosswind, downwind, base, and final are in seemingly universal usage. The upwind/departure leg doesn't seem to have worldwide agreement. The European Aviation Safety Agency has a document that includes a diagram remarkably similar to the original image on which this SVG is based (page 33). In that document, it is referred to as upwind with no mention of departure. A document from the UK based flying school Purple Aviation has the leg labeled as both upwind and departure (page 2). The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia) doesn't label the leg on anything I could find (page 11 for an example). The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand refers to it as the "climb out" and labels it as such on their diagrams (pages 5 and 6). --auburnpilot talk 22:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Australia's page 23 identifies the climb out as the Initial leg (which is the semantic mirror of Final). Curiously, the upwind leg is also shown, but it is not labeled. 75.208.220.22 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling Departure by the name Upwind is wrong for the same reason that Final is not called Upwind: They are not the same place in the pattern. Yes, Departure is called Upwind by some non-professional pilots; but these same pilots use other incorrect terminology for other things, so that is no basis to mislabel a diagram. Yes, this could be US-centric terminology. So why not just include the official FAA version for what it is and the EASA version for what it is? There are other problems with this diagram being incomplete. Just changing one label does not correct the whole problem. With public domain versions available, I see no reason to reinvent a diagram. If another diagram is needed beyond the FAA and EASA versions, it should be a super-simplified version that omits all entries and exits from the pattern. The EASA document cited by AuburnPilot is not instructive; it does not appear to discuss the traffic pattern - rather it is a pictorial presentation of accident statistics (apparently created in conjunction with NASA).

Comment. The issue here is whether the image should be delisted from being a featured picture (not whether it should be edited or deleted). This picture is not among the best on Wikipedia. 75.210.56.4 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely be helpful to people reviewing this discussion if you identified which parts of the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria are not being met. --auburnpilot talk 22:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason updated. --75.208.173.163 (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Following initial criticisms I edited the image. That did not settle the matter. Until this is settled and the image conforms to the outcome, I think featuring it is a bad idea. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --75.208.219.58 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) - Reverted - there is clearly an insufficient quorum for this action, and it certainly can't be judged by the nominator. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No consensus to delist. --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the voting period should not end before a quorum is reached. 75.210.240.193 (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the rules work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the quorum rule? 75.208.222.168 (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting: "For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it will be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator. However, images are sometimes delisted despite having fewer than five in support of their removal, and there is currently no consensus on how best to handle delist closures. Note that anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." This was not so clearly a delist as to merit an exception, and, while you are welcome to renominate after a decent amount of time, if you keep up this sort of behaviour, you're just going to drive everyone away from touching this, you know. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion[edit]

I have made further changes to the diagram since the above discussion, and have started a continued discussion on its Commons talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: File:Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus flower.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 23:13:22 (UTC)

Reason: Last year an IP raised a fuss about this image, using the FPC talk page and a less extensive rant at the article's talk page. Now, I'm no botanist, and I'm not vouching for the accuracy or lack of accuracy of this image, but as a result of this debate the image has very little use. Jkadavoor attempted to reinsert the image but was reverted almost immediately. Now the image is way, way down in a very, very, very overillustrated article.
Articles this image appears in: Daylily
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus.jpg
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Photographer/nominator notified here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I requested input at Wikiproject Plants. Chick Bowen 23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daylilies have been extensively hybridized and there are many cultivated varieties (cultivars), some of which have then "escaped" and become at least semi-naturalized. It's extremely difficult to tell from a photograph of a flower whether this is the true wild species or a cultivar. The Flora of North America does say that the species "escapes", so it's possible that the image is of the true species. However, the Flora of China says here that H. lilioasphodelus has "lemon-yellow" flowers; the Flora of North America says the same here. I wouldn't describe the colour in the image as "lemon-yellow". To be confident that this is the true species, given that it was photographed a very long way from its native range, it would be necessary to show that all of the description in the Floras applied. An image of a flower simply isn't enough to tell either way. Whether this should lead to delisting I leave to others. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Even if that flower somehow is properly identified in terms of genetics (and I doubt it is), it's not a good iconic illustration as it does not show the lemon yellow, which is a big iconic feature of the subject.TCO (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. The current usage is far from ideal. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the first discussion I agree with what JJ Harrison said he was told by a herbarium, without a voucher stored and properly identified by a trained botanist, you can't be 100% sure. Some plants, specifically these day lilies hybridize soooo easily and therefore identification is difficult even for experts. Properly identifying a flower from just a picture is almost impossible, and even field identification of many is impossible. Theres enough doubt cast that this isn't a true representation anyway. Personally I'd prefer good high quality photos of herbarium vouchers myself for featuring and putting in articles for plants, to bad most herbariums don't release their digital files under a wiki compatible license. Regardless present usage alone likely requires procedural delist, so Delist. — raeky t 06:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Percival Lowell observing Venus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2013 at 14:25:35 (UTC)

Reason: Though a recent addition to the gallery, the original nomination was contentious because of size issues. This discussion resulted in the evaluation of the image's EV being neglected as well. The most obvious issue with the file is that it is of a low resolution. The previous nomination established that original plates of the image do exist. It stands to reason that a better copy is very much possible, though not available. There is thus no reason for waiving the size requirement we imposed--the image is not of a historical nature that we cannot expect a better quality image. It falls into the unfortunate category of "best free subpar reproduction". That's not our best work, and that's not what we've featured in the past. Had for some reason the original copies been destroyed and this been the highest possible reproduction, it would have been reasonable to let the standards slide. However, this is merely a case of lack of access.

Additionally, the image has remarkably low EV, particularly in its current use. Percival Lowell is better illustrated by other, high resolution images (I see no reason why, for example, a restored version of his lead portrait would not be a good candidate). The Lowell Observatory is poorly illustrated in the image and it has low EV there as a result--that's probably why it's more or less in a gallery. In Great refractor no mention is made of the man or the building and the image s more or less tacked on. Planets beyond Neptune certainly pertains to Lowell and his work, but this isn't the telescope that was used in that inquest and if we're trying to illustrate the man there's clearly better images available.

Also, this may be somewhat bold, but the consensus on the talk page seems to be that the Delist section is on it's way out. While there's some details left to be sorted, the recent Barack Obama picture went through the main section without too much stir. Therefore I've listed this along with the rest of the nominations, marking it clearly as a delisting nomination. Now I'll sit back and bite my nails.
Articles this image appears in: Percival Lowell, Lowell Observatory, Great refractor, Planets beyond Neptune
Previous nomination/s: 2006 nomination (not promoted)
2013 nomination (promoted)
Nominator: Cowtowner (talk)

Delist — Cowtowner (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original nominator now notified. Cowtowner (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a stunning composition that illustrates an important article. I'm not convinced by the size arguments (if we are going to allow exemptions...let's allow them. Plus what matters is use in our 'pedia and as displayed, size is not a problem). Finally, I think running delists on recent images for size or other technical criteria is contentious. Now if you had found out it was non-free or was not Lowell or dropped out of article or if it had been in our bank for a long time, that is a different matter. But just rerunning it? The size is not new information and was considered by the promoters at the time. And the stuff about plates being available is too abstract (if they exist but are unavailable, how is that different than if destroyed?) If you get them fine, upload a new version...but until we have them, we don't have them.TCO (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions are fine, but there has to be justifications for them beyond "I like this picture". To quote the criteria, "Exceptions ... may be made where ... no higher resolution could realistically be acquired.". That's hardly the case here. It's not unrealistic to obtain a scan of a plate that exists. It is where no other copy does. Which is how the two cases are radically different. Accepting that images simply aren't available because we don't possess them while others do but aren't making them available isn't a convincing argument. It opens up the door for featuring more or less any image that we come across. Just making exemptions on the basis that the image is strikingly composed defeats the purpose of even having criteria. Not to mention, it takes this project back a good 6 years or so to days of radically lower standards. As for the image "illustrating" the articles, I'd suggest reviewing the case I made against the image's EV (which I think is just as compelling a reason as the technical deficiencies for this being delisted). It seems to adorn more than anything.

Recency is an irrelevant point-if they were undeservingly promoted they were undeservingly promoted. There's no grace period of featured time before we can or should talk about delisting. There's no point to letting them languish in the gallery out of politeness, or a desire to avoid controversy. While the size issues (or even the EV which got overlooked in the nomination) may not be new, that doesn't make them relevant. Additionally, there is new information, namely the discovery that there are existing plates which was a very late development in the previous nomination. Cowtowner (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm for keep as well, per TCO. But also, don't forget the very first sentence on this page: "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Of course, this should be taken as advice along with the image meeting the criteria, but I, too, think exemptions should be made in the case of extraordinary photos, and this certainly appears to be so. If I saw this on the Main Page, I would want to know more about it. As for the plates being inaccessible, while this isn't necessarily akin to saying they're "destroyed" (quoting TCO), I do think it plays an important role in judging a, and particularly this, photograph. We must work with what we have, and we must get the best of what we have if possible, but "possibility" shouldn't be precluded by impossibility. Obviously it would be most remarkable if Wikipedia had free and welcome access to every locked museum vault in the world, but sometimes the best we can come up with is actually good enough. If anything, this photograph has an immense potential for delist & replace, someday in the far future. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by reiterating that being a pretty, eye-catching picture is firstly not one of the formal criteria, but a guideline and that even so being eye-catching is not itself cause for waiving the critieria or even loosening them. While being breathtaking may add to an image's case for promotion, it can't make it up entirely. I'll take this from the criteria to illustrate "A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing". To quote a different the actual criteria again on exemptions (see above for another example; it states multiple times why we might waive these requirements...and mentions impact all of no times) "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed". Yes, this image is historical, but was taken in a medium that allows for a much higher reproduction. It is hardly impossible to imagine acquiring a higher quality picture. There is one available for purchase scanned at 300DPI which is by any standard low resolution yet still higher than what we have featured. It's also hardly difficult to imagine having it scanned properly at a higher resolution by the museum it's held in. This is hardly an impossible situation like destroyed plates would be. The simple fact of the matter is that everything has to be featured. Yes, Wikipedia has to work with what is available. That's why the image is in the article. But accepting what is merely available as our "best work" defeats the purpose of a featured pictures project. This is not out best by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, we could delist and replace it in the future, but the point here is that it shouldn't have been featured in the first place. We can hope for free access to all vaults in the future, but we don't need to feature substand images like this in the meantime. We have other resources which are far superior and are actually our best work. This is somebody else's mediocre output. Cowtowner (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everyone who was involved in the original nomination was well aware of the issues raised above. Nothing has changed. Also, I personally asked the owners of the original glass plate negatives if they would donate a hi-res scan for us, but they declined. That, I think, satisfies the caveat that "no higher resolution could realistically be acquired", unless one takes the word 'realistically' to mean 'forcibly'. This is a beautiful image, even if I do say so myself, hardly 'subpar' or 'mediocre'. :-| nagualdesign (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they won't give it away, but that doesn't make a high resolution copy unrealistic to acquire or impossible (to use the criteria's wording) to acquire a technically superior image. If a higher resolution copy isn't freely available but could be made or exists, then we shouldn't feature this sort of low quality version. This sort of standard results in a very slippery slope. Cowtowner (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is an impressive, eyecatching image even if smaller than desirable. As explained above, this is the highest resolution that can realistically be acquired. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: Audubon's Ivory-billed Woodpecker[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2013 at 18:43:06 (UTC)

Reason: This image is an altered version of the original plate published in Audubon's Birds of America in 1827; while whoever enhanced the image did a good enough job, the original scan is of a far higher resolution, while the other does not meet the size criteria, and, even more significantly, the original scan has the original captioning, an integral part of the engraving, while the enhanced version does not. The initial and unaltered scan contains original caption information about the plate number, the name of the bird, and the specification of which bird is male and which is female, a problem that came up the last time this image was featured. This is not just another 19th-century lithograph of a bird, it is part of one of the most essential publications in the history of natural studies, and the original captioning is utterly essential to the value of the image. It is dishonest to remove it. This image is not only serving as a representation of the Ivory-bill (a role which it is indispensable in), but is also a record of one the most famous and expensive rare books in history; see: List of most expensive books. When this is replaced we will change the image in all the articles it is present in, and we can hopefully use this as a starting point to feature as a series the rest of the priceless prints from Audubon's Birds of America. See the gallery of all the images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mturtle/The_Birds_of_America
Articles this image appears in: Ivory-billed Woodpecker, John James Audubon, List of most expensive books, The Birds of America
Previous nomination/s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Ivory-Billed_Woodpecker
Nominator: Indefatigable2 (talk)

Delist and Replace — Indefatigable2 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support D&R per stated reasons. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Good reason for D&R on this one, however, I must insist that replacing the current because "it does not meet the size criteria" be removed as a valid reason for D&R to get any Support from me. When the criteria was changed, it was agreed that current FP's were exempt from the change. Dusty777 02:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a valid reason (or, at least, valid to mention) if you're simultaneously providing one that does meet the size criteria, provided quality is otherwise the same. Let's not get too caught up about the exact phrasing of something that simply amounts to "the replacement has significantly better resolution". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for d&r of the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2013 at 12:37:21 (UTC)

Reason: The edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.' The original is more evenly lit, of a higher quality, and, as the authentic exposure, is more honest; the actual exposure is encyclopedia material, not the altered NASA publicity version, which has sadly given fuel to speculation. See the captions to the right.
Articles this image appears in: Original Unaltered Image: 1960s, Apollo 11, Buzz Aldrin, Cold War, Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, Extra-vehicular activity, History of spaceflight, History of the United States (1964–80), Human spaceflight, List of spaceflight records, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Of a Fire on the Moon, Omega Speedmaster, Space exploration, Terrestrial Analogue Sites

The Altered Version Appears in 18 Articles

Previous nomination/s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
Nominator: Indefatigable2 (talk)

Delist and Replace — Indefatigable2 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't disagree with that logic, if not just because of the lighting. The current FP is an FP on a number of different projects. Should someone alert them as well? upstate NYer 02:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support D&R~~ --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my vote per my comments below. I

Strong Support Delist of current FP as the altered colors greatly reduce EV, and
Support the Original Unaltered Image as it meets the FPC criteria. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the image's iconic status contributes to EV, consideration should probably be given to the version the public would be most familiar with. The Blue Marble has the upside-down version featured, for example. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The copy we have of the famous version (existing FP) looks like it has been scanned from a print (magazine or poster) and is much higher contrast with less tonal detail and some vignetting. However, the "original" version actually looks a bit low-contrast on the suit. I wonder if we can get a better quality version of the famous crop? The "original" version's crop is just bad and no wonder it wasn't used directly for publicity. The claim that the "edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.'" is completely false. Both images lack the antenna. There is no such thing as "the authentic exposure", though our copy of the famous version does look more manipulated. For the purpose of a thumbnail in a WP article, the famous one still wins imo. Colin°^Talk 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC) On NASA's site there is this version which is different again, though is cropped at the bottom and has the usual NASA web-page problems with small size and heavy JPG compression. Colin°^Talk 16:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not 'completely false.' On the original, the antenna is naturally excluded from the image, while on the altered version, a black space is created where in reality there would be none. The antenna was indeed 'cut out'; in adding an arbitrary black space, the editors could have opted to add the antenna, but decided not to, and thus, cut it out. That is the official description of the altered image. The altered image, while perhaps useful for publicity and perhaps recognizable in its own right, is dishonest for an encyclopedia, as it depicts the Apollo 11 spacesuit in a false way. That is my contention. Indefatigable2 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a source for your "harmonious" conjecture that quotes the technician who created the famous version? People extend sky (space here) in photographs all the time. People rotate photographs all the time. What people don't generally do (because it is dishonest) is paint things in that weren't captured. I guess the photo editor didn't even notice the missing antenna or didn't consider it important (which it isn't). But that's just a guess. Your description of this as "cutting out" the antenna is just bending words. All photographs misrepresent reality.
  - Let's put this into perspective and forget for now pixel peeping issues with the actual JPGs we've got. The first image is a great historic photograph of a man on the moon. A man on the moon for goodness sake! Wow. The second "original" pic is a photographic mistake. You can hear a million people going "Can't you even hold the camera properly for crying out loud?". Only a nerd would like the second photograph. Who gives a **** about a little white wire? Colin°^Talk 07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose D&R. Per above comments. They sent a man to the moon, not an antenna. This is a great picture of a man on the moon. The second picture should only appear in articles that discuss Armstrong's lack of photographic abilities or conspiracy theories concerning the missing antenna. I strongly suggest the original be used in other articles. This is a classic example of missing the big picture. Further, I suggest Wikipedia/Commons continues to pester NASA to release better quality JPGs. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the antenna issue is a bit silly. You are right, the image is about a man being on the moon. That said, I think we should faithfully reproduce the landscape that was there, which I think is clear is not done in the current FP (just look at the colors of the lunar surface). That said, I would very much welcome a rotated version that reconstructs the missing parts of the spacesuit (antenna or not, don't matter to me) so long as the colors are faithful to the original image. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wingtipvortex, I see you still support "D&R". Bear in mind the primary purpose of an image in these articles is to be a thumbnail (secondary purpose is a link to a high-resolution copy, and thus to alternate versions even). Which of these two images (at thumbnail size, not the size here) is better for our articles? I'm concerned that FP has this "&R" option for images appearing in a couple of dozen articles. FP has no editorial power, though opinions expressed here are valued. The real decision is always made on the article talk page for each article -- though one might often take a consensus here as enough to be bold and edit directly first. Since this picture is so highly used, perhaps a note on the article talk pages and wikiprojects would be useful? On another point, I would be happy to take the higher-quality TIFF from NASA and add a bit of space above just like the famous one to see if we can reproduce the image but with a better source. What do you think? I wouldn't be happy to draw in bits of spacesuit, however, and I would oppose that especially if done by a wikipedian rather than NASA themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I think that the NASA original is better for the articles, for the reasons I stated before. I think we have misinterpreted the "&R" of our power. The way I interpret it, our power does not extend to replacing an image in an article. Our power is the ability to remove the FP status of an image(which we gave it) and giving it to another that better meets the FP criteria. How the replacements happen in the articles is not something we should determine here, though each individual editor may do as they so please (either being bold and replacing it, or taking it to articles' talk pages). In fact, it would be nice to have a bot that automatically puts a notice on articles' talk pages when a FP in the article as been replaced by another.

Not sure how I would feel about us doing the modifications. I too would rather have NASA be the one that did that.

To clarify a bit of my opinion, I am opposed to the current FP keeping its FP status, as it is not an accurate representation (colors, not spacesuit or antenna) of what was on the moon, and this its EV is not enough for our standards. If the current FP was used in an article about "NASA publicity versions of images," I could see it having enough EV for that or other articles where appropriate. But as far as accurately representing what Armstrong and Aldrin photographed on the moon, it is my view that the offered 'replacement' in this nom does that much better and thus, in my opinion, is the one that merits FP status. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current FP, oppose D&R: The version most recognised publicly has the higher EV here, rather than an image which much of the general public has never seen. (Note how the missing antennae has its own EV for conspiracy theories) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current featured picture, oppose D&R. The one that is currently featured is the one that everybody knows. Echoing Colin, however, is it possible to find a better scan of the famous version? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: File:Lysimachia monelli (habitus).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2013 at 01:09:32 (UTC)

Reason: Questions over EV. The species seems to have been split out in 2009, and we don't have an article on the new species (see reason for renaming on Commons)
Articles this image appears in: Anagallis monelli
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anagallis monelli
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can see, there has been no splitting, merely a reclassification. I've updated the article and moved it to the new name- there are a dozen or so other articles which also need to be updated. Perhaps the picture should still be delisted, but I do think it has a certain charm. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue was only with the state of its use (not well versed in plants, so I didn't get that it was reclassified). Withdraw. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2013 at 09:16:00 (UTC)

Reason: I nominated this for delisting several years ago, when the community was ambivalent. Even at the original nomination, there were very few supports. I just don't get the image- I don't see any EV. Lot of notable people plus a high resolution does not a FP make- this image is not particularly visually interesting (the composition isn't exactly perfect...) and, more importantly, seems to have no particular EV: the meeting between these men, nor their appearance at whatever gathering this was taken at, receives no mention in any of the articles. (I have notified the nominator.)
Articles this image appears in: Archibald Butt, James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Delist — J Milburn (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whilst the EV isn't overwhelming, I see some value in at least the Baden-Powell article where it makes sense in terms of scouting coming to America (the date being pretty early). There's not much but the Butt article adds something too - his service to Taft "Butt continued to serve as a social functionary for Taft" - it seems to be a good illustration of at least this statement. Whilst the meeting itself being mentioned would be a much greater EV, there is some. Just wanted to make the case, at least - the previous delist nom isn't particularly helpful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was cropped to the centre three, it would probably not be a terrible Baden-Powell and Bryce image. It lacks a clear focus as it is, though. Weak delist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Just don't see the EV. It can't be in their physical appearance; all of them have free images available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per J Milburn. JFitch (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Poor composition and little apparent EV. I agree with Adam's comment that a crop would improve the visual impact of the picture. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Scleropages formosus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2013 at 02:53:24 (UTC)

Reason: I do not think the quality, particularly resolution and focus, of this image meets current featured picture standards.
Articles this image appears in: Asian arowana, Barbel (anatomy), Endangered species, among others
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scleropages formosus
Nominator: Fredlyfish4 (talk)

Delist — Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist - In terms of focus I think this is not as bad as it could have been. However, I have concerns with the noise, and the colours look a little... banded?. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Is this a useful image? Yes. Is this image among our best work? No, not really. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per J Milburn. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replace -- Shall I ask you why the image is tagged ad out of focus?..'''Johncy''' (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with what? Do you mean "delist"? J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Antanas Smetona 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2013 at 20:57:43 (UTC)

Reason: The quality of the photo is visibly poor, the size is too low to attempt a restoration, and there's a weird stamp in the bottom right corner that ought not to be there. Previous delist was over copyright concern, not quality.
Articles this image appears in: Antanas Smetona and eight others
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Antanas Smetona 2.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Antanas Smetona 2.jpg
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?

Delist — Sven Manguard Wha? 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The licensing still seems to be all over the place. We need to be crystal-clear about the copyright status of our featured pictures, and so, until clarification is forthcoming, and regardless of quality concerns, I support delisting. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nomination and copyright status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough support for delisting of the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced[edit]

Ilya Repin - Sadko[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 19:01:26 (UTC)

Reason: Delist & Replace: Significantly higher quality version sourced through Google Art Project.
Articles this image appears in: MANY
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sadko
Nominator: — raeky t

D&R — — raeky t 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D&R, I could nitpick the Google version but in this case the current FP has a number of flaws--too dark, not completely sharp, and cropped a little bit off the frame. Note that the wooden frame intrudes a little bit at the top of the Google one; this could actually be a perspective problem (if the camera was pointing up slightly--with which I would sympathize, since it's pretty tough to photograph a huge painting like this), or it could be that the wood has warped over time; I haven't seen the painting so I don't know. Chick Bowen 04:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Think we could get away with a tiny bit of colour adjustment to remove the non-intentional varnish yellow? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be one of my nitpicks, yes. I don't think it's a white balance problem but possibly a lighting problem, so I don't know. I'd be interested to see an attempt. I'd still prefer this over the original though, even though neither is perfect. Chick Bowen 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the varnish is yellowing with time that's important EV to be represented since that's how the actual painting currently looks. If it's not been restored then it's important it's preserved. It's also possible the yellowish tent is intentionally colored varnish, as the artist intended. It's not EXTREMELY old for a painting, and I'm no expert here but I donno if varnish that old would darken to any extreme amount in that time. I think it's not our place to decide to alter the colors that the museum chose to reproduce the painting as, these images are from the museum. Info on varnish and restoration I found [2]. — raeky t 06:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm a bit suspicious of whatever process the Google Art project is using to scan these images. As far as I can remember, it seems that every Google Art image I've seen here has appeared underexposed and with a yellowish tint, regardless of the age of the artwork. Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit of white-balance color-correction on these images. They just look terrible otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll give it a try, upload an alt, we can judge. The thing is, there's not strictly a single "correct" brightness or colour, since those depend on lighting, giving a range of correct. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R, preferring Alt Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support the alt. Kaldari (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R prefer alt, per above. Jujutacular (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R, prefer ALT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Ilya_Repin_-_Sadko_-_Google_Art_Project_levels_adjustment_2.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Gothic D&R[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 19:18:30 (UTC)

Reason: Delist & Replace: Significantly higher quality version sourced through Google Art Project.
Articles this image appears in: MANY
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/American Gothic
Nominator: — raeky t

D&R — — raeky t 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google art version is significantly darker and yellower. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also cropped a little tighter at the bottom. Chick Bowen 04:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I donno, I think the tiny loss of a bit of the bottom from a crop is more than made up for by the 2.6x more resolution. My understanding is that the Google Art project is an attempt to fairly faithfully represent these artworks, and it's probably a better representation than the older and what looks to be overly whitebalanced version that the old FP is. The women's collar looks like it's completely blown out. From seeing this panting in person I kinda think the Google Art version is a better representation. Also the version on the museum's website clearly shows the Google Art color scheme (although it MAY be the exact same image..) On the other hand photographs of it on Flickr seem to be more white then the yellowish on the museum's website. My opinion is that the museum's color scheme for it is probably enough authority to trust that they're representing it best they can, and we shouldn't except more. The old FP though is really low quality in comparison to this one, so either it's a replace or straight up delist imho. — raeky t 06:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI, often colours of images of paintings on Flickr will be somewhat distorted because they're using auto WB and it tends to adjust towards blue on yellowish objects. If you compare Flickr photos of the Mona Lisa to the C2RMF version this is very clear (that doesn't stop people from constantly trying to retouch it be less yellow than it really is). In my experience Google's images tend to be more colour-accurate, at least the scans they do themselves, because they seem to have a controlled lighting setup. Dcoetzee 12:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original. Have to say that I prefer the lighting/color in the original (as well as the crop). Not sure which is more accurate though. Kaldari (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D&R I don't like the WB of the original (too blue). I think the Google version is an accurate reproduction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R. Per all above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R per nom. Brandmeister^talk 18:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Jujutacular (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Grant Wood - American Gothic - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt self portrait D & R[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 03:21:47 (UTC)

Reason: Higher quality version available through Google Art Project
Articles this image appears in: Self Portrait with Beret and Turned-Up Collar, Black, National Gallery of Art, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, Rembrandt, Self-portraits by Rembrandt,
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rembrandt - Self portrait
Nominator: JFH (talk)

Delist & Replace — JFH (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R A much improved scan. Jujutacular (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Significantly better scan. — raeky t 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Yes, definitely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the colors of the new scan. Tomer T (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Google scan is much better colors IMO. The original is a bit blue-tinted. Jujutacular (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Jaws of Death[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2013 at 13:05:20 (UTC)

Reason: Current FP is a damaged image, not used anymore, has been replaced by proposed FP replacement. I perfer the enhancements (dodging & burning) of the proposed replacement's print over the very bright current version. Iconic famous photograph, high resolution, well made print. Has an article about this specific picture. Was nominated before (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Into the Jaws of Death) ~~and a lighter damaged print exists (File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg)~~. I think of the two versions (ignoring the damage in the second one) the darker dodging and more selecting burning of this print is more dramatic, and is the widely used of the two now. Image was used on the May 28, 1984 Time Cover. A restored high resolution scan of this version.
Articles in which this image appears: Into the Jaws of Death, 1st Infantry Division (United States), 1944 in the United States, Allies of World War II, Amphibious warfare, History of the United States, Invasion of Normandy, Michael J. Daly, Normandy landings, Omaha Beach, Photojournalism, Robert F. Sargent, Timeline of World War II (1944), USS Samuel Chase (APA-26).
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II
Creator: Chief Photographer's Mate (CPHoM) Robert F. Sargent

Delist & Replace --— raeky t 02:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The damaged one is already an FP, so this may have be a delist and replace nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, yea and it's not used anywhere. — raeky t 12:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is closest to the original? The damaged image is a completely different aspect ratio, and if the EV is in the photograph as a photograph, then any modification reduces the EV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it seems the photograph was taken in the morning, perhaps within four hours after sunrise. (ship was empty by 11 am) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Remember these are prints, it's a battlefield, so smoke would darken the sky... all that jazz. In the darkroom you can do a lot by dodging and burning. The replacement print is the one at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library. The current FP looks to be a quick print that the photographer didn't spend much time or any dodging and burning it, theres many flaws that have been removed in the proposed replacement. — raeky t 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point. What about the aspect ratio? The "quick print" seems to have more information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't know about the aspect ratio, bad scan? The current FP is of unknown origins for it's scan. The proposed change was made as part of ADAPT project. Looking at both images the current FP is clearly less focused, more blurry, and the proposed change has better detail and focus. There's slightly more information on the left part of the frame and slightly less on the right. But again due to hand print making of negatives in a darkroom slight variations in the edges crop will exist. As for the aspect, the difference is fairly minor, but due to the sourcing and providence of the suggested replacement I'd be more inclined to trust it's scan/print. — raeky t 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R per nom, although the fact that the current one is unused sways me most. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The replaced picture isn't used on any article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: Walt Whitman[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2013 at 03:43:57 (UTC)

Reason: Quite simply, a much higher resolution copy is available, and I've done a restoration of it. I noticed this image while redoing the People section of Featured pictures, and thought it was great, but, like a lot of 2005 FPCs, a higher-resolution copy has become available. (Aside: Had there not been a higher-resolution file available, I'd never have even suggested a delist. One of the best FPCs of 2005.)
Articles this image appears in: Walt Whitman and many more.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walt Whitman
Nominator: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support D&R', very good indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good restoration, and I think it's higher quality than the previous version. Spencer^T♦C 05:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mr X 21:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support D&R --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Walt Whitman - George Collins Cox.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: June odd-eyed-cat.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2013 at 15:28:06 (UTC)

Reason: I think the crop I made is a much better composed version, and there are less distracting elements. The cropped version is already featured in Commons and in Hebrew Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Odd-eyed cat
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Odd-eyed cat
Nominator: Tomer T (talk)

Delist and replace — Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, agree with nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace, also agree. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace The crop is a big improvement on this fascinating image Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per above--Nikhil(talk) 16:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:June odd-eyed-cat cropped.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace: Netta rufina m2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2013 at 18:46:05 (UTC)

Reason: This image is no longer up to the standards we expect of bird photography in my opinion. It's not of sufficient resolution and is also quite soft. I took a better photo of this bird and replaced it in the article so this image is no longer used. It has already been nominated for delisting twice already in 2006 and 2008. In the first delist, it only just passed and in the second delist, for some reason it never made it to the FPC page. It's time to get rid of it properly this time IMO. I'm suggesting a delist and replace with the second image, but alternatively, I'm happy to just delist without replacing.
Articles this image appears in: None anymore, but previously Red-crested Pochard
Previous nomination/s: Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard

First delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-crested Pochard delist

Second delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Netta rufina m2.jpg

Nominator: Ðiliff «» (Talk)

Delist and replace — Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace Nice find. It seems like a clear cut case of upgrading to a higher quality image. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace new image is obviously much better quality, ~~but I'm undecided about replace it as a FP at the moment.~~ Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- per Mattximus '''Johncy''' (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, can you confirm if you vote to delist and replace, or just delist? Mattximas voted to replace also. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace Nikhil (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and do not replace. I find that neither image is is of the technical quality of a featured photo. The suggested replacement is better, but still not up to par. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what aspects of the alt do you find missing, or what technical aspects could be improved? Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder that also as the user supported this nomination which I believe is of significantly lower technical quality, especially considering the relative difficulty of photographing a moving bird vs a stationary building. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - To answer David's question first: I do not believe that this photo took anymore skill than a building for multiple reasons. First, there are no location issues. The reflection in the bird's eye shows that you were standing on a dock/walking path. The location also shows you would have been on this path. The location is also a protected wetland/wildlife center where these birds are not afraid of humans. The bird itself is obviously not moving much, so therefore not much difference in photographing a building and and this animal. As for the technical aspects that I think could be improved, the first I noticed is the angle of the photograph due to the nature of where the photographer could stand. I think a lower angle would be more appropriate as it would do a better job of showing the bird. Obviously this would mean the photographer would have to find a different location. If the photographer (with his skills) take the same photo with an angle closer to File:Netta rufina tom (Marek Szczepanek).jpg I would probably support (the angle of that photo is the only thing I can appreciate). There is also softness around the tail that would be nicer to be more in focus. The most distracting part of the image to me is the white spot above the creature's head. One might think that it is a reflection in the water, but as it is a near perfect circle, that would not make sense with water movement. Rather it looks like something may have been on the lenses or floating in air between the camera and the duck. Hope this helps. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if the location is 'revisitable', that doesn't mean that it's as easy as taking a photo of a stationary building. It seems that you make superficial claims about the difficulty without a detailed understanding of what it takes to better the photo and what the inherent limitations are. To get down as low as necessary for the 'delist' image would require me to lay on my stomach on the edge of the pond (let's not forget that ducks defecate indiscriminately!). Also, it does appear that the bird is not moving around much but I assure you it is. You can see from the bow waves that it is moving forward. With very limited depth of field and with imperfect focus tracking, it is not easy to get the whole duck in focus as it rarely sits there parallel with the plane of focus and waits for you to get the focus just right. I'm not trying to make excuses for why the image is not perfect. I'm just explaining why it is most certainly not as easy to take a photo of a duck than a building. As for the spot above the duck's head... Really? You're not bothered by an inherent softness across an entire subject, but you're bothered by an out of focus blob? I assure you, it likely is a reflection on the water. It is not there in any other images taken just movements before and after. Specular highlights do in fact look like near perfect circles when not in focus and I'm pretty sure that's what they are. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace Jujutacular (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, weak replace (full support for the delisting, weak support for the promotion): I wonder whether delist and replace noms should be reserved for straightforward improvements on the same image (so, a new restoration, a higher-quality scan, a different crop) separate photographs. I feel like the photograph should be judged on its own merits, rather than in contrast to the other image (which I think we all agree should be delisted). These kinds of nominations always seem to result in some confusion. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How are we not judging the nominated replacement image on its merits though? A delist and replace nomination is fairly straightforward, except it asks one question then a follow up question: Should this image be delisted, and if so, should the second image replace it as a FP? Seems like most people are considering both questions separately and not assuming that a decision to delist automatically implies a replacement also. I agree that separate nominations would also work just fine, but I don't see how there's evidence of confusion to justify doubling the nominations. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Netta rufina (Red-crested Pochard) Male, London Wetland Centre - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and Replace: Plasmaball vid2.ogv[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2013 at 22:58:46 (UTC)

Plasma ball

Replacement HD video

Reason: low resolution and low quality video. Superseded by HD video.
Articles this image appears in: (previously) Plasma globe
Nominator: Colin°^Talk

Delist and Replace Note: if you just click on the video, you get a small video. You need to go to the file description page and click on "Original Video" to get the full 900x900 version. — Colin°^Talk 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D & R per Colin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace The old image was potentially FP material with the technology level at the time, but the replacement image is now up to current standards. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powershot G9 wasn't exactly current video tech in 2008 (its just that most people weren't prepared to run things through ffmpeg2theora). Mind you a 2010 APS-C SLT isn't exactly current video tech now. Given how available plasma balls are I wouldn't be surprised if we end up updating this one every few years. Heh we've also shifted codecs in that time (theora to webm).©Geni (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace, I was actually just about to suggest you nominate it for FPC when I saw it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D&R per above. Chick Bowen 06:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D & R '''Johncy''' (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Plasma globe 23s.webm --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted[edit]

Racist campaign poster[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 20:20:08 (UTC)

A racist pro-Hiester Clymer campaign poster for the 1866 governor's election of Pennsylvania.

Reason: Frankly, I was shocked to see this was one of Durova's nominations, and can only presume that the very small size (1.34 megapixels) stymied someone used to much larger scans. Between the horrible condition of the original, and the very poor scan of it, this image, while certainly encyclopedic, is well below our best work.
Articles this image appears in: Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, Hiester Clymer, John W. Geary, Racism, Sociology of race and ethnic relations
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Racist campaign poster
Nominator: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you referring to the torn edges, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just that: There's a bright line across the middle of it, and a dark patch going down towards the centre. It's also pink, which I really doubt is the original colour. It's also fairly blurry, over-exposed (Victorian ink is quite a bit darker, and doesn't fade like that), and the resolution is very low, although not so low that it couldn't have passed at the time. The thing is, I vaguely remember this nom, and I don't remember it being this bad; and Durova's philosophy generally involved trying to make something look as it did when it was new So I don't know what's going on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have the bits at Commons? Maybe you could check to see if there's a deleted version, or if a page has been redirected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't unfortunately. I, like several admins there, resigned them in protest when Jimbo was deleting all historical paintings and engravings that contained nudity, in an attempt to placate FOX News. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Best not go into that bit of Wikihistory. Noone looks good =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm vaguely aware of it, hence the curt reply . I'd much rather read about the deletion of the main page or VFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now, Delist pending clarification of any possible "ghost files" which may have disappeared somewhere. The crease mark is blatant even at preview size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if that's the current view of this file as it stands. Although as you can see I chose not to vote in the original nomination I do remember it and I am quite sure this is the same file. People were impressed at Durova's efforts to repair the hole in the middle of the original scan, so that's why they supported. To be honest, there are a number of digital restorations from that era we might reconsider; standards are definitely higher now. Chick Bowen 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, good to have that mystery cleared up, anyway. And don't get me wrong: It's a good filling in of the hole; if it was a better scan by the LoC... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. A worthwhile and valuable image, but not FP quality. --jjron (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: based on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Racist campaign poster I don't think there's anything funny going on. I think the file as currently viewed was the one that passed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Ashby grave[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 21:59:37 (UTC)

A photograph taken in the Castle Ashby graveyard

Reason: Poorly done digital black and white; if it's intended to resemble black and white film it did not succeed. Noisy, tilted. Cliched subject matter. I could go on. . .
Articles this image appears in: Castle Ashby Manor is the only one left; the others listed in the original nomination no longer use it.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CAGrave.jpg
Nominator: Chick Bowen

Delist — Chick Bowen 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, as above. Minimal EV. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not digging the EV. --jjron (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I can understand this passing in 2005; but the project has changed substantially since then, and this sort of somewhat clichéd art image doesn't really fit modern FPs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India locator map[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 21:17:53 (UTC)

An outline of India, without any captions, no cities listed, that allows lazy use in articles of not-particularly-useful maps.

Reason: Locator maps are useful ways to get a temporary map into an article showing its rough location. But they fail to show any other context: For example, they tend not to be geographical maps, so fail to give infornation on major features nearby, and show no other cities, so fail as political maps. As such, the encyclopedic value is low, and the best you can say about them is that they're a fast way to get something for your article.

As such, I don't see them as the best of our work, as our best work involves effort to make the best possible map for use in an article, not making do with a fast, easy option, that provides less than the minimal encyclopedic information that any other map used for discussing a location anywhere but Wikipedia would include.

You may get the feeling I think locator maps are a blight on Wikipedia. That's because they are. It only takes a few times trying to figure out basic things like "What's the nearest large population centre to X" using Wikipedia, and failing because of the ubiquity of bad maps on Wikipedia...

Well, I'll spare you further rants. It's not Wikipedia's best work. It's part of a systemic problem that ranks amongst Wikipedia's worst work.

Articles this image appears in: [N/A]
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/India-locator-map-blank.svg
Nominator: Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist mostly per nom. We have hundreds of similar maps, many with more detailed geographic information. In itself the locator map has limited EV, has no scalebar and shows no international boundaries between neighbouring countries. --ELEKHH^T 04:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom --Muhammad(talk) 08:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Per what Adam says above, it bothers me that this has very little potential value outside of Wikipedia, or even the narrow locator usage within Wikipedia. Most of our FP maps are much more versatile. Chick Bowen 16:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I personally think locator maps are very useful, but they are not in and of themselves "Wikipedia's best work". Jujutacular (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They can be useful as a stopgap, where they stop being useful is when even featured articles use them, without adding other cities. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brassica oleracea[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 18:42:06 (UTC)

Reason: The image does not meet the size standards, and also, I find it somewhat out of focus, dizzy and weird. Better images can be found.
Articles this image appears in: Brassica oleracea, Broccoflower, Romanesco broccoli,
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/September-2004#Fractal_Broccoli
Nominator: — ΛΧΣ²¹

Delist — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace. 1 is OK, but given the amount of space around the vegetable, it's pretty small. 2 has a weird background and part of the subject is out of focus; 3 is almost entirely out of focus. You're quite right about the original. Chick Bowen 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have improved the first possible replacement. I think it is up to standard now. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't think that was an improvement. I reverted it, primarily because I think, for the sake of courtesy, a change that great should be upload under a separate filename. But also--all you did was crop it and whiten the background, though not uniformly, leaving some odd gray blotches. Chick Bowen 21:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace - I think that from a technical quality standpoint, possible replacement 1 is the best. It is to me, however, the worst of the four at illustrating the... erm... fractalness of the plant. The angles on the other ones all show it better, IMO. That being said, I think that the backgrounds of replacements 2 and 3 are distracting, and I'm really not a fan of the original. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, don't replace to many options presented, once a good one is located it can be nominated separately, but this image needs to go for sure. — raeky t 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment I warned about this on the talk page, we can't start delisting retroactively just because the size standards change. Go to the original nomination (linked above) and you'll see nobody even mentioned the size of the image. Unless there is a good reason to delist it or an image that better represents the subject then it should be kept. If you think it should be delisted because it's out of focus then nominate it for that, don't use it as a hedge reason because people might notice that the size criticism doesn't hold up to an examination of the FP criteria. Cat-five t c ---- 06:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot speak for everyone else, but my delist vote was not based primarily on the size; it was because the subject is not sharp, and has a strangely abstracted relationship to the black background, which I'm quite sure is artificial. This feeling is pretty well summed up by the nominator's comment that the image is "weird." I strongly agree with you that images shouldn't be delisted solely because of size. Chick Bowen 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My criticism was mainly aimed at the nominator more than the voters but something that the voters should keep in mind. Too many people use size as a reason to oppose a nomination or support delisting but try to backstop it with another issue. In this case the other issue may be pertinent and a good enough reason to delist but if it is then the size shouldn't be an issue. Cat-five t c ---- 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since there may very well be a non-size reason to delist I'm crossing off my keep vote and turning it into a comment. Cat-five t c ---- 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote has nothing to do with size, but it's just a BAD picture, BAD cutout, and even if it was a huge image I would never vote for it. — raeky t 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace with #1, higher resolution and high EV because of its sterile setting. --LucLewitanski (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe this picture should be delisted due to it not meeting current size requirements. I believe that it was agreed that current FP's would not be affected by the criteria change. Dusty777 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta slum children[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 23:17:29 (UTC)

Reason: This image was promoted in 2005 largely because of its' "message", however the quality of the image itself seems poor to me. Both the framing and the lighting seem bothersomely off, and the EV is decent, but there are enough similar images that it can't be carried by EV alone.
Articles this image appears in: Child poverty
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jakarta slumlife65.JPG
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?

Delist — Sven Manguard Wha? 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist provides almost no EV to Child poverty, just children playing with trash, can be of any soceio-economic background without more information really... doesn't illustrate poverty as well as billions of other images could. — raeky t 00:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delist. It's underexposed and little noisy, but that it has stuck as the lead image in the article for seven years suggests it has some kind of EV. I could be swayed either way if we had more information about how typical (or not) this kind of scavenging is in Jakarta, whether there are risks associated with it, etc. Chick Bowen 19:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to full delist, since I think File:Jakarta slumlife14.JPG is a far better illustration of child poverty, and I will place it as the lead image in the article if and when this one is delisted. Chick Bowen 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, in response to Chick Bowen. Landfills small and large quite common in Jakarta, where poor garbage management contributes to flooding because of blocked drainage, such as the most recent one last month. It may not have encyclopedic value for a broad topic such as child poverty, but could for a focused article on the city's environmental management. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Hindsight is 20/20 but it's hard to believe that this image was ever considered the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Cat-five t c ---- 06:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was promoted on account of its message, not its quality. That much is clear from the original nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three cell growth types[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2013 at 08:50:40 (UTC)

Reason: Image does not satisfy the current FP criteria. It is small (as a diagram this should probably be SVG). While it has encyclopaedic value in giving a rough comparison of the types of cell division, this is limited because the diagram itself doesn't clearly illustrate any of the steps nor lend itself to proper captioning. The description within the diagram is also technically incorrect as cytokinesis and fertilisation are also included in mitosis and meiosis.
Articles this image appears in: Cell division, Cell growth
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Three cell growth types
Nominator: Paul_012 (talk)

Delist — Paul_012 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom, though the best thing would be if someone redid it with those criticisms in mind; that this is still used prominently in several articles suggests that there is a need. Chick Bowen 00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. I am not comfortable commenting on the biology, but, at the very least, this should be an svg. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist agreed on all points. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aus Soldier crab[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2013 at 18:36:39 (UTC)

Reason: Apart from the size requirement (that can be overlooked), my main concern is the blurriness of the image. In my opinion, I find it to be a bit unrealistic and shady, and the floor looks weird. For me, it does not meet our standards anymore. I'll try to find a better candidate and bring it to FPC in a future.
Articles this image appears in: Mictyris longicarpus
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Light-blue_Soldier_Crab Promoted in 2006.
Nominator: — ΛΧΣ²¹

Delist — — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for what appears to me to be jpeg artifacts on some of the appendages (claw on our right, it's left, and one of the legs on our left, its right) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist due to very low resolution, JPEG artifacts, and that the photo can presumably be easily replaced by a better one since the species seems to be quite common. dllu (t,c) 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. Something stronger than this would be needed for FP status. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Mediran (t • c) 22:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markham tract housing[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2013 at 23:56:49 (UTC)

Reason: We need to delist one, otherwise this will get Meta very fast. Both of these are current featured pictures.
Articles this image appears in: Markham, Ontario, Tract housing, etc.
Previous nomination/s: 1st: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Suburbs; 2nd: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Markham tract housing
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg (1st) — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg since the other one is featured on Commons and is tagged as a Commons POTD. ~~The first should also be deleted from Commons. Want to take care of that, Crisco?~~ But how is Meta involved here? Also, I've replaced one of the files in the deslist nom here, since they are not exactly identical but I agree that we don't need to feature both of them. --Pine^✉ 04:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta-humor (also, glad you caught that I copied the wrong link). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg (1st) for reasons state above. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above (either, whichever the consensus is, preferably Markham-suburbs.id.jpg.jpg). Can I also recommend that the closing admin replaces the various usages? J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is late, but consensus is clear here and the 1st one should be delisted per above. Chick Bowen 00:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're only 11 minutes late, so considering how obvious of a case this is, I hope your vote counts. If for some reason the first image isn't delisted, it will just be renominated and be a waste of time for everyone. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was only 11 minutes--I just saw the red lettering. I wouldn't have even made anything of it if I'd known. Chick Bowen 01:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 June 2013 at 06:03:46 (UTC)

Reason: Delist and replace the current featured picture of Barack Obama with his White House portrait.
Articles in which this image appears: Barack Obama, Economic policy of Barack Obama
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama (2006 portrait)
Nominator: --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Delist & Replace as nominator. The current FP of Barack Obama only currently appears in 1 article and is of marginal EV. The replacement portrait is a much better portrait in almost every way. It has much higher EV and appears in multiple articles. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, no opinion on the replace. It's clear that the old image needs to be delisted- there's no particular EV for this image concerning Obama's energy policy, even if he happens to be making a speech on energy policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist but aren't delists supposed to go in the delist section below? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was down there a few months ago, but not enough people voted. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just start a new precedent, right now, in which delists are listed in with the other nominations. They might get more attention that way, and it's not like there are so many of them as to make the main list ungainly. On this image, weak delist (but closer may count me as delist if this ends as 4.5 delists and no keeps) per various previous nominations, don't replace, the new official portrait is pretty mediocre in my view: busy, flat, toothy, and weirdly composed, just short of traditional half-portrait length and with his head crammed up against the top of the frame. Chick Bowen 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for that new precedent. If this runs its course, I guess someone could just boldly remove the delist section and adjust the instructions at the top. We've talked about it enough times! J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple Swamphen down the page. Chick Bowen 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never look at the delist section; it's mostly because I forget it's even there. I never look at the table of contents, just force of habit to skip to current noms, scroll through until I recognize an image, and be done. But would delists go here, even without a replace? Also, maybe the word "Delist:" should begin the title of every delist nom; at least something to make it stand out for those who do look at the TOC; also to hopefully refrain people who don't pay attention to the introductory information from writing "support beautiful photograph" accidentally. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's move this discussion to WT:FPC#Eliminating delist section (for real this time). Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace. The old image is just plain bad. Replacement is good. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the image is here, I was just wondering, how can the official version be public domain and yet have the following requirement? --Muhammad(talk) 05:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal use only. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not otherwise be reproduced, disseminated or broadcast, without the written permission of the White House Photo Office. This photograph may not be used in any commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

That's pure BS; if it is public domain, you can't put a restriction on it. That said, the PD release should serve as "permission of the White House Photo Office." --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's like when you see those dump trucks that say "Not responsible for broken windshields". It's complete BS. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, don't replace. Current FP is clearly subpar. I would like the new image to go through the regular voting process and get scrutinized in its own for quality and license, without confusion of wanting to replace a lesser image.TCO (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sake barrels.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2013 at 00:31:42 (UTC)

Reason: Promoted to FP in 2004 because everyone agreed with the nominator's statement, which I'm using as the caption. I don't disagree that it's good in appearance, but it definitely fails our current standards because of its size: FPs need to be "a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height", but this image is 1024x768.
Articles this image appears in: Itsukushima Shrine; it was taken there. List of Japanese dishes; it illustrates a type of Japanese beverage. 100 Landscapes of Japan (Heisei era); it illustrates one of the landscapes. Note that this isn't a fair representation of what uses this image — it was recently deleted on copyright grounds before being restored, so presumably it got removed from other pages that were using it. This delist nomination is completely unrelated to the copyright issues (make it related if you think it should be, but my motive for bringing it up is purely because of its small size), which you can find discussed in the "Missing image" section of the current revision of WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sake barrels
Nominator: Nyttend (talk)

Delist — Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reuploaded this file from an offsite copy linked at commons:User talk:Fastily#File:Sake barrels.jpg, after the Commons instance was deleted. However, I have no idea if the copy is a full-size one. (It may well be, 2004 was a long time ago.) I'll ask Fastily if it was, and if not, if a full-size copy can be undeleted from Commons for us to use. — Scott • talk 01:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily has confirmed that this is the full-size image, so I guess I reluctantly have to say delist. — Scott • talk 10:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Because this is not a place I've ever been before - is it usual to delist images that were selected under older standards when the standards change to become more stringent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. See the delistings of Arrrr! and of File:Ph physical map.png, for a couple of randomly-selected times when this has been done. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as this is still somewhat reproducible. If this were not I wouldn't mind the size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Delisting on size has been controversial in the past (on the theory that we should give some precedence to the criteria at the time of nomination), but this has some chromatic aberration, and it's not well used (galleries, basically). Chick Bowen 17:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I don't care about the size (it really doesn't impact usage in article of the encyclopedia.) It's way confusing though. Thought I was staring at some round Gateway boxes or something. The angle seems off also. Having a bunch of barrels instead of one.TCO (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Lobatus gigas 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2013 at 13:25:32 (UTC)

Reason: This shell is not entirely in its natural state; the cut or filed lip is an artificial modification that is commonly carried out before the shell is sold, and is meant to make the shell look more attractive. The two thumbnails I have included here show how the lip should really look in an intact shell (much more extended and frilly). The lip is thin at the edge and usually gets chipped a lot while it is being collected and shipped, hence the trimming.
Articles this image appears in: Lobatus gigas
Previous nomination/s: gigas 01.jpg Original nomination,

A delist mention

Nominator: Invertzoo (talk)

Delist — Invertzoo (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. I think we have to give more importance to subject experts and the collective opinions of individual Wikipedia projects. J Kadavoor J e e 06:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I'm convinced. Invertzoo, have you looked at Zell's other FPs? (See Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Molluscs.) Chick Bowen 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as far as my knowledge extends, all the rest of the shells in Zell's FPs are fine. However, there is a problem with File:Pulmonata.jpg which is not a Zell image. The illustration in that file is quite pretty to look at, but the portrayal of the snails and slugs in it is scientifically quite inaccurate! I suppose I'd better file a delist nomination for that one too. Invertzoo (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, assuming that Inverzoo's explanation is correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I trust Invertzoo immensely on this kind of issue. --99of9 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Providing the different views (read how captioned in article, please) is a very helpful graphical feature for explanation.TCO (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist If it's not the real thing, it's not the real thing. Thanks for lending your expertise, Invertzoo. Cowtowner (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Purple Swamphen[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2013 at 17:30:57 (UTC)

Reason: Superseded by File:Purple Swamp Hen Wollongong.jpg, now featured. Little-used. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple Swamphen for more discussion.
Articles this image appears in: Way down the page in Arrocampo Reservoir
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg (kept, but the new FP did not yet exist)
Nominator: Chick Bowen

Delist — Chick Bowen 17:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist J Kadavoor J e e 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Little used, bird is covered by grass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per discussion in replacement FPC. --99of9 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist.TCO (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Pulmonata.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2013 at 13:15:41 (UTC)

An artistic (but not scientific) illustration from 1893 of European land snails and slugs, also showing some food plants and fungi, eggs, and a beetle predator

Reason: It has very little scientific value at all. The artist drew the snails and slugs so "loosely" that they are not well portrayed, and one of the species is not a pulmonate anyway. The main problem is that the images do not very closely resemble the actual snails and slugs that are supposed to be being depicted, and because of that this image is quite misleading scientifically, although in other respects it is arguably cute and charming.
Articles this image appears in: Pulmonata
Previous nomination/s: Has quite a bit of history (see file usage). Got promoted here picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpg Was nominated once before for delisting [3]
Nominator: Invertzoo (talk)

Delist — Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous delist makes interesting reading. I think this would have been delisted if it had had more comment. After thinking about it for a bit I would say delist; not evidently notable as a work of art, and the problems Invertzoo points out have actually long been known. Chick Bowen 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I moved this nom page to bring it in line with standard delist practice per the autogenerated titles created by Template:FPCdel. Chick Bowen 01:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If the file does end up being delisted, would someone who has Commons rights please change the name of the file to "European and slugs and snails" or something similar, otherwise people will keep adding this to articles on Pulmonata in this and other Wikipedias. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The original title is "Land Molluscs", something like "Land Molluscs - Royal Natural History.jpg" would be best. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: As InvertZoo says, it is an arguably cute and charming picture, but is scientifically incorrect and should not be used in articles. JoJan (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Too busy.TCO (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I absolutely love the picture- I'd love it on a mug or something. However, I have to agree that the EV is limited. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this was better used - for the illustrator, for example, I'd be opposing the delist, but as it is, despite its artistic merit, I think Invertzoo has it right. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2013 at 04:36:58 (UTC)

Reason: Possibly misindentified, and as such no longer used. See also User_talk:Sasata#File:Tremella_mesenterica.jpg
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I do think it's a stunning photograph, but without a positive ID it's not really appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Unless there is a confirmation of the species. Mattximus (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it looks more like a Dacrymyces palmatusDeonyi (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from Tasmania. Does Dacrymyces palmatus grow there? Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe I had help from two mycologists at the university with the identification. But it was the better part of five years ago now, I don't remember exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture isn't used on any article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Leeedit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 23:09:12 (UTC)

Reason: Compared even with other Civil War era photographs, this image appears to have a number of issues both in terms of brightness and in focus. There are several other images of Lee around, and I have to think that if a restorer of Adam Cuerden's caliber were to work on one, we'd be able to turn this from a delist to a delist and replace
Articles this image appears in: Robert E. Lee, Military of the Confederate States of America, List of United States Military Academy alumni, and Confederate States of America
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Robert_E._Lee
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?

Delist — Sven Manguard Wha? 23:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Wow, I'm so used to looking at great candidates it's rather shocking to see one of such low resolution! Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was promoted in 2007. A lot of Featured content was promoted in 2007 (pictures, articles, portals) and very little of it holds up to modern standards. Six years can do that. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well in that case, you should place their delist nom too. Also Delist for this image. Herald talk with me 14:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist '''Johncy''' (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question This image is obviously created from a very old photograph. Is the low resolution of this image due to the inherent low resolution of the source material? If so, and this is the best quality of this image (and subject) that will ever be available, then I don't think it should necessarily be delisted. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The low resolution is due to the scan of the image not the source material itself. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image isn't just a little bit off, it's bad. It was either bad when it was taken, bad when it was developed, or did not age well before being digitized, but the issues are too severe for the "but this is really old" clause. There are plenty of civil-war era images that are fundamentally sound, to which that clause can be considered. This isn't one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I generally detest the delist because it's old nominations but this was bad quality back in 2007 and there are many better pictures in the article that are both of high quality and better represent the subject so this should be a no brainer. Cat-five t c ---- 02:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist definitely -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Tecumseh sherman.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2013 at 23:18:09 (UTC)

Reason: Compared with other portraits of Union officers, this has an inexcusable amount of shadow on the right side. The article on the general has opted for a different version of this image, File:William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg, which has a significant reduction of that shadow, and that image has displaced this version in all but one article.
Articles this image appears in: Chattanooga Campaign
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William Tecumseh Sherman
Nominator: Sven Manguard Wha?

Delist — Sven Manguard Wha? 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per above. Mattximus (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - How come this be a FP and POTD?? Herald talk with me 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may very well have been within the standards a half decade ago when it was promoted, although even the this should not have passed, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per Herald '''Johncy''' (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, but looking at the original nomination, I'm not sure this should have passed. I count three votes for the other picture, two for this one, and one for either. Should we reconsider the other? It's in use, could use a cleanup. Chick Bowen 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Suggest that the other picture be renominated. It's probably beyond the point where it can just be promoted outright but the other image should go up for another nomination with the note that it probably deserved to be nominated in the first place. Cat-five t c ---- 02:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I would support nomination of secondary photo if it were cleaned up. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure. I think that the first image was selected because it encapsulates the man's (apparent) ruggedness better. Either way, it's contingent on Adam Cuerden or another restorer spending some time on it, as the alternate image is a bit beat up right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I propose to do this image if no-one objects. It has major benefits in accessibility, and could easily, post-restoration, have crop made to give a very similar effect to the former FP. @Sven Manguard: Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, the image of him I like best is NPG.81.M175.D1, available in tiny resolution as File:William T. Sherman by Mathew Brady Studio, c. 1865.jpg... but the National Portrait Gallery doesn't even offer an obvious way to order larger copies of images, let alone make them available. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a ton of images in the National Archives Flickr's "Mathew Brady Civil War Photographs" collection, including this version of the other image up for delisting, and this version of the image up for desisting at this page, as well as a couple of others of Sherman. Adam Cuerden, do any of those work? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Resolution's on the low end of acceptable. but http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/4190887790/sizes/o/in/photolist-7okoW3-7uZRVc-7uZSZB-7pXCr9-cqnXL1-7k3WjU-abgUNQ-7k4dMh-cqnXXW-7vx4mC/ is doable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it's worth I support this one. It's a great picture, the current FP doesn't do it justice. Mattximus (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2013 at 15:26:26 (UTC)

Reason: This file was recently promoted as part of a complete set of Fractional currency. The object is in better condition and the file is higher quality than the delist candidate to the right.
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg
Nominator: Godot13 (talk)

Delist — (the image creator and the image nominator have both been notified) Godot13 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; seems reasonable to me, but I am of course open to being persuaded otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Makes sense, and this scan is of slightly lower resolution anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist reasonable. Mattximus (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist pretty clear cut case, could be speedy closed. --ELEKHH^T 11:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Godot13 has done a commendable job scanning banknotes from the Smithsonian collection. There is a slight difference between the two banknotes, the back of "US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863" was printed by the American Bank Note Company (the ABC in the lower right.)The banknote from the Smithsonian was printed by the US government. See Blake, George Herbert. (1908). United States Paper Money. Pages 32 to 41. [4] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWTPC6800 is correct. While these are they same type of note, they do represent two slightly different varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a type Fr#: 1230, Godot13's image is a type Fr#: 1231. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This is a monogram version, type Fr#: 1230, the other image is a type Fr#: 1231. The Fractional currency (United States) article explains the difference but does not show an example. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see your point on this, however the picture does not appear in any article at the moment, and that is a criterion for inclusion as a featured picture, is it not? Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was in the Postal currency in September 2013 that was merged into Fractional Currency. I will leave it up to Godot13, the major editor of Fractional Currency, to decide if this image should illustrate the American Bank Note Co. monogram. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand what you are saying, however the Featured List Fractional currency (United States) is built around the Smithsonian Institution's collection. All the notes are from the National Numismatic Collection. It is intended to be a complete type set (not inclusive of all varieties which would number well over 150). The ABNC monogram is represented on some of the other First Issue notes of other denominations.--Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]