Wikipedia:Former featured pictures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article star - cross.svg

Former featured pictures

This page lists pictures that used to be featured pictures, but were demoted because they do not meet current featured picture criteria. Featured pictures can only be demoted through a consensus derived through discussion at the featured picture candidates page.

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Image:William Cranch.jpg[edit]

William Cranch.jpg

I think this image is copyrighted. See: http://www.photorescuer.com/celebrities2_n.shtml

The original image was in the public domain. The only available version of the original image is significantly damaged. This restoration company redrew, cleaned up, and changed a large portion of the image. See their FAQ: "All content on this web site are protected by a U.S. Copyright. The content, including but not limited to pictures may not be downloaded or used in any way without our written consent."

  • Nominate. --BRIAN0918 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support de-listing. A major retouch work can be copyrighted. --Janke | Talk 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reference that describes how to convert a public domain offering into a copyrighted work by retouching? - Bevo 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support de-listing, regardless if it is still public domain. It's just a slightly ugly, unspectactular image. The original, though - aesthetically, it's much more interesting. I'd be more likely to support that for FP status... Zafiroblue05 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small, unremarkable. enochlau (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Copyright issues and image size. --Dschwen 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


FPC status removed per consensus. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yarra_river_near_city_medium.jpg[edit]

Yarra river near city medium.jpg

As mentioned in an above nomination, this picture does not hold up to standard anymore (blown out sky, dark foreground, picture size too low), and it is not used in a single article.

  • Nominate. --Dschwen 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support de-listing as per above. Wouldn't de-list all images of this size, though. 700x1000 is good enough, if the image is really stunning, and no larger is available. --Janke | Talk 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right (abt. the size) but here it's just too many factors combined. --Dschwen 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - The fact that it isn't in an article is good enough for me. Broken S 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist its washed out and not anything spectacular.. + not up to standards. bag it. drumguy8800 - speak? 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist on the grounds that it is not linked to an actual article. TomStar81 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Has to have an article DaGizzaChat (c) 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist on quality. - Bevo 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist as per the criteria that featured pictures must be used in an article. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It was actually I that removed it from the Yarra River article originally, as I didn't feel it was spectacular in any way, and I replaced it with another featured picture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Its a nice picture, but it doesn't show anything clearly. I nominated it for delisting in October 2004. -- Solipsist 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


FPC status removed per consensus. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Common_clownfish.jpg[edit]

Common Clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) in their Magnificent Sea Anemone (Heteractis magnifica) home.

Small size and garish colours. - Samsara contrib talk 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Insert witty Nemo comment here. --Dschwen 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Size is one of the problems. Colors are blown out, not only the white of the fish, therer is also barely any structure in the orange. Sharpness is borderline, a larger version will not help. --Dschwen 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Samsara contrib talk 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist for small size, unless we get a bigger one; the white on the fish also looks overexposed. But you are joking about the garishness, right? Markyour words 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agree with above. Alr 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. See my comments in Anolemeal below. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist ACK Mark Calderwood 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist for colour (over exposed) and size. I've added a note to the uploader's talk page in case a larger one is available since most objections so far seem to be size related. ~ VeledanTalk 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist overexposed. --liquidGhoul 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Image:Anolemeal6127.jpg[edit]

Anolis carolinensis eating a dronefly

Image is not sharp (camera motion blur?). Also compare with Image:P1010027.jpg which is a better featured image of the same species. - Samsara contrib talk 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist. Very unsharp. --Janke | Talk 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist ACK Janke Calderwood 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Samsara contrib talk 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not up to the current standard anymore. --Dschwen 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I want to be charitable here. It's not as sharp as current FPs, but it is fairly big for an August 04 FP, and the image itself is strikingly natural, far more so than the other FP, which is pretty to look but boring aside from that. Zafiroblue05 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree, totally, with above Sotakeit 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply to both above votes: A good friend of mine has had these in captivity for a number of years, and I can tell you with some certainty that a shot like this would not be too difficult to get in the wild, especially if you're using a bait fly in typical habitat. This will make it relatively easy to get a sharp image, too, as you can position your tripod in front of the bait and be relatively sure of a good shot. These animals are fairly curious, and especially males are not too shy. In fact, captive ones may voluntarily come to sit on your hand if you've got warm hands. - Samsara contrib talk 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But even if this picture is staged to some extent, it is still a more interesting staging than the other FP. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Remember, FPs should be the very best Wikipedia has to offer. This means that older stuff will have to be delisted, as requirements change. Also, delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s). I am in favor of delisting all small, unsharp FPs, in order to remove them from cluttering the collection of new, better ones. Delisting does not equal deleting ! In fact, I think it is such an important distinction that I added it to the voting instructions. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist; too blurry. - Pureblade | Θ 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - not up to standard.--Deglr6328 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sydney_opera house.jpg[edit]

Sydney Opera House
  • Seems to be poorly compressed with artifacts. Also probably a bit small. Alr 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. enochlau (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's a nice shot, wish it was bigger. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not striking at all to me. Mstroeck 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Mikeo 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. --Dschwen 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Samsara contrib talk 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist compression too high, artifacts Glaurung 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bluesky2.jpg[edit]

Blue sky

A nice picture, but tiny by current FP standards. We also have a superior FP picture of the same type of clouds at Image:GoldenMedows.jpg. Delist. Zafiroblue05 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist. Agreed. Alr 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Too small Broken S 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep small, but nice. --Lewk_of_Serthic 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - res to low. --ZeWrestler Talk 06:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist yep, tiny ~ VeledanTalk 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • withdrawn my delist pending news from Denni. This is a wonderful and rare sky so it would be a shame to lose it. I apologise for not thinking to ask. ~ VeledanTalk 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist too small --Mikeo 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, as above. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a good illustration of cumulus clouds (looks like perfect gliding weather). However, this is a pretty old FP and comes from an era when we limited image sizes. It would probably worth askying User:Denni whether there is a larger version available. A similar situation occured with Image:Mackerelskybig.jpg not so long ago and that resulted in a higher res upload. -- Solipsist 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Solipsist. I was feeling kind of discouraged when this got nominated, as it comes from a time when we were discouraged from uploading large images. It is very, very rare to see such pure cumulus humilis skies, and despite the fact this photo is close to 20 years old, I have not seen such a pure day since. This image comes from a slide, and I would be happy to provide a larger image, but I will need some time to find the original. If people can bear with me, I will provide it ASAP. Denni 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, too small. If you can upload a larger version, I'd vote keep, but 288x442 is definitely too small. It's a beautiful sky, though. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Samsara contrib talk 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until Deni can find a larger version before deciding on this, as it seems that size is the only concern here. Raven4x4x 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't be inappropriate to delist as per process and have the high res one go through FPC again. Because the high res one might be noisy etc, or have something else that people object to. enochlau (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist current version, keep if larger image is found. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is an outstanding weather photo which perfectly illustrates Cumulus humilis clouds. --Eraticus 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted If Deni can find a larger version there will be no problem with it going through FPC again. We just need to clear this backlog. :) Raven4x4x 07:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Australian Garden Orb Weaver[edit]

Australian Garden Orb Weaver

The image is only 726x603 px, and we have a better picture of an Orb-Weaver spider featured. Compare the image with this (superior) image Image:Orb_weaver_black_bckgrnd03_crop.jpg. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist Fir has obviously gone out and improved on his own photo. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Neutralitytalk 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist since there is a clearly superior picture of the same subject that has reached featured status. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist since there is a better image available. --Janke | Talk 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist better image is available. Mikeo 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's still a good picture, even if there might be a better one of the same subject. I still like it enough to keep. Oh well. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Nevermind... too small. I do like the picture though. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue morpho butterfly[edit]

please check full size version

The thumbnail is pretty, and the image seems to be used a lot. But the actual image is only 800px wide and appears very washed out. The high ref-count is due to inclusion in a stub template. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist I don't mind the resolution, but the photo is blurry. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain as per my other arguments that we can't retroactively apply new standards to old noms when the photo itself is not changed. The whole point of this process so far and the reason why until recently there was no delisting is that unless an entirely new photo is taken (which in itself would have to go through the FP process) there is no way to make more than minor fixes to the photo. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Butterfly has no abdomen. Neutralitytalk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Extremely blurry. This is a very proper delisting nomination! There doesn't need to be a better image available - delisting will not delete this picture, it will still be in its article(s). --Janke | Talk 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Mikeo 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Does look blurry. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pentakisdodecahedron[edit]

Pentakisdodecahedron

Not used in any article. It was inserted into Pentakis dodecahedron several times, and was always kicked out. The animation aspect is nice but does not significantly increase the understanding of the shape. Colors are not exactly pretty (but that's probably very subjective). Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist Boring subject, and it is missing a vital criterion. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Due to fact that it does not meet the criteria of being used in an article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Neutralitytalk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist as per nom. --Janke | Talk 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist see above Mikeo 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Machu-Picchu.jpg[edit]

Machu-Picchu.jpg

Another one from March 2004 informally promoted. Not a patch on the new candidate. Delist ~ VeledanTalk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist, a much better version is about to be promoted. And even if it weren't, the pic is much to small. --Dschwen 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist: per above. --Hetar 07:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. Much better version will most probably a FP. Mikeo 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm re-nominating the (fixed) panorama. --Janke | Talk 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist too small, pano is Betta!. -Ravedave 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist The panorama is better - Glaurung 06:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agreed Alr 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Machu-Picchu.jpg has been delisted (and the new one promoted today, too) ~ VeledanTalk 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Mtl-metro-map.png[edit]

Mtl-metro-map.png
SVG reinforcements have arrived!

I can't find any evidnce of this ever having been promoted or discussed. And anyway, it's a small tube map. Delist ~ VeledanTalk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It probably was - we just didn't have proper archiving back then. ed g2stalk 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I spent the whole of yesterday afternoon searching the histories. The other pics I nominated for delisting took some finding too - none of the pics were shown in their respective discussions which made it tough ~ VeledanTalk 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a small tube map which is an essential contribution to the Montreal Metro article. I'm sure drawing a map like this is a lot more work than snapping some of the pictures which can be seen at WP:FP. Anyway, the file format is a knock-out so delist PNG, but keep if... an SVG version is provided (and the copyright notice is removed from the image, this belongs on the image page or the SVG source as a comment if you wish). --Dschwen 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Odd copyright info and rather small. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The copyright isn't odd, it's GFDL (someone should clip off the copyright notice on the bottom). Neutral to delisting, keep it if an SVG is found.BrokenSegue 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Odd copyright info... on the image. ---LV (Dark Mark) 15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I "found" (i.e. made) an SVG version, and I can testify that it really is a lot of work :) -- grm_wnr Esc 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The SVG version ommits accents such as on Collège. If they were reincluded I might support its replacement. BigBlueFish 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Umm... As far as I can tell, it doesn't (at least I see one on the Orange Line station Du Collège - is there another place where I missed one?) -- grm_wnr Esc 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Eek... my mistake. On the default Wikipedia SVG rendering though, the accents are all only a couple of pixels, barely enough to show what type of accent they are. I don't know if a different font could be used to improve this. At any rate, I suppose the current SVG is acceptable seeing as it does have the accents. BigBlueFish 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason for delisting. Quality is good. It is illustrative. Plus the effort needed to make this one was most probably much higher than for some of the supported snapshots above. Mikeo 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Promote the SVG and delist the png. BrokenSegue 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep edit I cant find any missing accents... -Ravedave 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. A FP should impress and create interest in the article. I just don't see any diagram do that. --P199 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. For a very good diagram, see the recent "leaf morphology" FP - wow! --Janke | Talk 07:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not goose-bump inducing... Seriously, this is good in its article, but not so stunningly good it deserves FP. It's too cramped, the typography and layout is not "the very best WP has to offer". --Janke | Talk 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per Janke. enochlau (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Good diagram but not featured quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Good, not great. ed g2stalk 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mtl-metro-map.svg was delisted (7/3) - Great that we got a .svg version out of it though! Thanks to Grm_wnr for that ~ VeledanTalk 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dostoevsky 1872.jpg[edit]

Dostoevsky 1872.jpg

Nice picture, but very small - it was promoted a long time ago. I can't find a bigger version on the internet (except for one slightly-larger image that is inferior to this one in terms of color). I put a message on the uploaders talk page a while ago, with no response.

Image:Dostoevsky_1872.jpg has been delisted ~ VeledanTalk 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sunset Images by Samoano[edit]

On Featured pictures visible (I didn't check the others), there are 6 sunset images by User:Samoano under the Weather section. There are no links from a subpages of Featured picture candidates for any of the images, thus, implying that it was never nominated here and was simply added to the FP visible page. (I didn't want to simply take it off the page, just in case I was wrong.) Looking back at User:Samoano's contribution page, he added those images. User:Fir0002 already informed him, but recieved no reply. Here are the images:

  • Nominate and Delist All Six Images Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 06:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist immediately. No need to vote, they were improperly added. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist. It can't be claimed that the candidacy page was somehow "lost" since the black borders would've been edited out had the pictures gone through FPC. Redquark 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist The nice thing about photos loaded to the commons is that they do not officially exist on Wikipedia, one must "create" the page when adding the fpc and fp templates for the purpose of seeking featured status for them on wikipedia, and these photos, according to the red image links, have never been edited. Therefore, they have never been officially listed here for featured picture consideration. TomStar81 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist --Janke | Talk 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Done I removed the pics. -Ravedave 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)



The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Red Sky at Night[edit]

This image is pretty good; however, it should be delisted considering the fact that it is only 288 pixels × 401 pixels.

Actual size
  • Nominate and Delist Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 05:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with User:Black and White. --Windsok 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree. --Janke | Talk 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - Not big enough MosheA 14:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist.--Mad Max 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Che Guevara Statue[edit]

Che Guevara Statue

Not used in any articles, subject cut off, low "worshipful" angle.

  • Support Delisting. Redquark 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not a very encyclopedic picture. -- bcasterlinetalk 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Flaws as stated. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, not in any article. --Janke | Talk 07:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not in any article, not very interesting --MosheA 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist What the ... --Mad Max 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral of Magdeburg[edit]

Cathedral of Magdeburg

Blurry, blown-out highlights.

  • Support Delisting. Redquark 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. The highlights don't bother me as much as the uneven tilt. -- bcasterlinetalk 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (author). Tilt was a major consideration during the original nomination, and the image was corrected for tilt very carefully. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Terrible ISO noise, blown highlights, poor detail and sharpness, etc. --Windsok 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, although I think the problems are sensor or compression artefacts. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tilt is of less concern, but too blurry for today's standards. --Janke | Talk 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nomination. --Mad Max 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too much ISO noise and too blurry. Janderk 07:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Suit[edit]

David Scott's space suit for Apollo 15

The dimensions of this image are respectable. Going back to its FPC Nomination, I learned the image was a panorama. However, the subject is cut off, which I think really takes away a lot from the image. Furthermore, there are various places where the highlights are blown out. For example, notice the shoes, his helmet, and the ceiling.

  • Nominate and Delist. Black and White (TALKCONTRIBS) 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Bad lighting, the "fisheye effect" is not appropriate here, and the reflection in the helmet is just too messy. --Janke | Talk 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Just a weird perspective, it looks strange. And, as mentioned, cut-off at the side. A shame though. --jjron 11:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A good high res stitch. Promoted with +9/-0. ed g2stalk 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
... almost two years ago, 8/2004. FPC "standards" have changed enormously since then. --Janke | Talk 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This is not a compelling picture, the subject is at an odd angle, bad cropping, non-standard size. Witty lama 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per above. --Mad Max 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Fairly unattractive. -- bcasterlinetalk 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nominator. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't think the perspective was necessary. I've been to the museum and there is more than enough space to move further back and avoid that perspective. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No way am I supporting the delisting of this. If there's a better image that's already here or can be immediately uploaded, then I'll change my vote, but this is a historically important image, and is an example of Wikipedia's coverage of important subjects with great photos. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This image is in NO way historically important, the exact same shot can be taken by anyone else any day of the week. Historic this ain't. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but can that shot be uploaded to Wikipedia any day of the week? —Vanderdeckenξφ 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyone who visits the museum and happens to take a photo of it can, yeah. I should have done so when I was there but taking a photo of every significant object in the museum wasn't my priority at the time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It CAN be, but that doesn't mean it WILL be. But that's irrelevant anyway. The point is, your whole argument is specious. A "historically important" image is one where it is impossible to replace or reproduce. The 1906 Earthquake panorama at the top of the page is an example. No one can take that photo anymore. This photo here is easily and trivially replaced, hence the picture is not historically important. The SUBJECT is historically important, to be sure, but (as I've stated) the flaws in the picture make it inelligible (IMO) for FP status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's been cropped, is a revert possible? --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above.say1988 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Bevo 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I was actually only in this section to list this image myself. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Due to bad lighting and mainly the cut off. Janderk 07:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are far worse pictures in FP.--Zambaccian 11:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Osiris planet[edit]

Cropped image, currently featured
Full image, currently in article HD 209458 b

The first image is featured, but does not appear in any article. The second image is a de-cropped version, appearing in HD 209458 b. We can either switch featured status from one to the other, or delist it as a cheesy "artist's conception."

  • I say delist. - ragesoss 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. cheesy "artist's conception." describes it perfectly. Not being used in an article also is a knock-out criteria. --Dschwen 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too artificial. --Janke | Talk 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Just a somewhat pretty computer-generated image. No encyclopedic value. Redquark 19:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per above. --Mad Max 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm not too strongly opposed to artist's conceptions, but this doesn't appear in any articles anyway. -- bcasterlinetalk 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sand sculpture[edit]

Sand sculpture

At only 300px wide this is far too small IMO.

  • Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unacceptably small. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Small resolution and bad framing. Shame, this is a great subject, could be a great photo. --liquidGhoul 08:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's all cut off anyway. --jjron 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist due to size. -- bcasterlinetalk 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I feel bad delisting this photo as it is one of my favourites, but the size...just is not up to current standards. TomStar81 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I want to say keep, as it's one of my favourite featured pictures, but it won't make any difference, and I can't bring myself to say Delist. I've contacted the original photographer to ask for a larger version. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. way too small, and cut off. --Dschwen 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist While the subject of the photo is astounding, the photography itself is far from it. The photo is too small, cut off, and off center. -- Nilington 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. --Pharaoh Hound 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted (*cry*) I loved this one too ~ VeledanTalk 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Onsen in Nachikatsuura, Japan[edit]

Onsen

I find the image quality on this pic too poor for me to think of it as one of the finest images Wiki has on offer.

  • Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Nothing special. --liquidGhoul 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Yeah, this could be anywhere ~ VeledanTalk 17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Snapshot -Glaurung 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Don't see the encyclopaedic value. Other shots on the page are more informative. --jjron 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Vacation photo. Somewhat interesting, but certainly not FP quality. -- bcasterlinetalk 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Fine photo illustrates rotenburo quite well. High quality. Fg2 22:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Fg2. TomStar81 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (note: I took the photo) -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Sorry, but I think the image quality is much too poor. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. as per bcasterline. Witty lama 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Very poor image quality. --Windsok 14:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spot Fetcher[edit]

Spot Fetcher

Burnt highlights, low res, poor focus/sharpness

  • Support Delisting --Fir0002 www 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist As above --liquidGhoul 08:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delist. Fir is right of course but I also have sympathy with the reasons it was promoted. Alas, probably not enough to keep it as an FP ~ VeledanTalk 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As above. More to the point I support delisting the whole Spot Fetcher article. What's the point of it - can I make an article about my pet? Cute dog though. --jjron 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, though it is a nice shot. -- bcasterlinetalk 12:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Is this what the standards used to be? My God. Delist per above. --Life is like a box of chocolates 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It is interesting to see the comments that Veledan linked to above. It just shows how much pickier FP is now. Witty lama 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Very cute, however it is too small, and too blurry. --Pharaoh Hound 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think the shortcomings are sufficiently severe. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delist size and everything else above.say1988 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted ~ VeledanTalk 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Coca Cola Bubbles[edit]

Coca-cola bubbles macro

Reasons for delisting: Poor focus, small image, too abstract, not particularly illustrative

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Fawn in Forest[edit]

Fawn in Forest

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Not very high-quality, not very alluring

  • Delist --Fir0002 08:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per Fir0002. --moondigger 15:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist --MosheA 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist say1988 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - Awful pic, don't know how it ever got through. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist As above, seems odd this ever made it through (even under older standards). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I took this picture, not really sure why I thought it was good at the time. Maybe because I was there and it was crazy that the thing was that close. There was actually a better picture than this one, that is to say, it might have been better had there not been a huge ugly tree in the way. I really need to get a camera with a decent lens and proper manual focus one of these days. --Elfer 14:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm surprised this got through, especially so recently (Sept 05). Having said which, it would be a thrill to take the photo. --jjron 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Mt Cook[edit]

Mt Cook

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Lens glare, plane wing visible

  • Delist Plane wing is a problem --Fir0002 08:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist --MosheA 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per Fir0002 --Pharaoh Hound 00:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - glares off cockpit, wing in photo, bad general quality. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Glare, wing, window reflection, more than enough to delist over. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Window reflections and wing. Actually if you check the original promotion, even that looks a little dodgy to me. --jjron 11:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, mainly due to the reflection. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Image delisted. Raven4x4x 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

LCD Pixels[edit]

Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg

I realize this just got promoted, but doesn't this explicitly fail WP:WIAFP #4? Because it uses the Wikipedia logo (which is copyrighted), it cannot be a free use image. I think this is very well done but unfortunately one of the most basic criteria cannot be fulfilled.

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You do realize that the image description page reads, "This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation," and "Notwithstanding any other statements, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL," right? Since the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted and copyright extends to derivative works (which this is), it seems clear to me that this by definition cannot be free use. Couldn't this image just be redone with a different background? howcheng {chat} 06:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I've asked User:Danny for an opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation. howcheng {chat} 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It uses very little of the logo, and the appearance is different enough from the original logo that it should be fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-28 01:01
  • Keep. Ack Brian. --Dschwen 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist It violates #4. Wikimedia doesn't release their images under a free licenese. Therefor, the use of the image to illustrait a point like this could, at best, be fair use. Fair use is expressively prohibited. Heck, if its not fair use its by permission on wikimedia websites only, which still means it doesn't have a free license. Kevin_b_er 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist (Creator of Zoom edit) it is a derivative work of a copyrighted pic, therefore not free. Though fair-use would probably fly... [1] its fine though we'll just have User:Diliff to get another shot taken of somethign free, and then anyone can add a zoom box. -Ravedave 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Derivative works that are significantly different from the original can be considered separate works, not under the copyright. This one easily fits that description. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-07 04:32
  • Delist. I am sure the creator can make a new version without questions about copyrights.say1988 14:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per the prohibition on fair use. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln Statue[edit]

Lincoln Statue
A thumbnail of the original, unaltered image.
Cropped, noise-reduced, converted to monochrome.

User:MosheA asked me to nominate this candidate for delisting since he didn't know how to.

Reasons: Too blurry, and again, not very alluring

  • Neutral --Fir0002 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delist It is very dark there, but anyone with a tripod and Cannon 5/10/20/30D could get a much better picture. -Ravedave 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This one might be fixed with a bit of Photoshop work. I could give it a try tonight. -- moondigger 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is interesting. The original image was much bigger and included people, so the version that was promoted to FP status was a crop in the first place. I cropped even more, got rid of most of the noise, and converted to black & white because the image was almost a monochrome anyway. I played with the file a little while, and don't remember all the tweaks. In any case, the result is better, I think... but I'm not sure whether it's FP material. I also don't know whether an edit this severe would be considered the same image for FP purposes, or if it would require a new nomination. Anyway, there it is. -- moondigger 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Just not up to standards.say1988 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist FP, nominate B&W edit. Good picture, but original is not up to standards. Support a Wikipedian going to the Lincoln Memorial with a tripod and Canon 5/10/20/30D to take a new version. —Vanderdeckenξφ 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'll make an attempt today. But perhaps it would be better on a weekday. hmm. --Gmaxwell 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I have pictures. Not as much or as nice as I'd like because it was crowded and I was harassed by security because apparently there is some material difference between pocket cameras with their obnoxious flashes that half the tourists have and my obviously terrorism related equipment (the national park service is going to enjoy my irate letter...). In any case, I'll go through my spoils tonight and see if there is anything which I feel is worthy. Otherwise I'll end up going back on a weekday. --Gmaxwell 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least until someone comes up with a better version. I like moondigger's edit, but we're starting to lose a lot of the pedestal. --jjron 10:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    We're not voting to delete the image.. :) That no replacement has been posted is orthogonal to defeaturing this image... the replacement won't be automatically featured in any case. I have alternatives which I've not yet posted, hopefully I'll get them up tonight. In the meantime you can look at the South wall. --Gmaxwell 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am aware of that. Personally, until I see something better I don't think the image is that bad that it needs to be delisted, if others think otherwise, fine. But if we go through putting up every image that may or may not make it through under current standards we could be very busy. I'm not convinced this wouldn't make it through now, although admittedly it probably wouldn't. --jjron 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Gmaxwell's contrasty Lincoln. View detail.
Gmaxwell's accurate and informative Lincoln. View detail.
I don't really understand your position. My view is that it is just a snapshot. It is not a bad snapshot, but it's not especially informative, nor detailed, it's not especially stunning, and doesn't exemplify especially good technique. And really, I don't see why you think it would have the slightest chance of being featured today.
I don't claim to have a 'feature worthy' alternative, and I think that the Lincoln statue in the memorial is a challenging subject to create an image of which would be truly deserving featured status... That said: Almost anyone, myself included, could produce images which are of similar or better quality day in and out. To the right I've included two images, variations on the same capture. I have a half dozen other similar pictures from different perspectives which I could put up, but I don't think they are especially good... and it probably won't be until the winter when the tourism drops off and I've had time to have a meeting of minds with the parks service and their over reactive anti-terrorism security folks that I'm able to get a capture of Lincoln that I'm actually proud of (see the south wall image I linked above, I actually am proud of that)...--Gmaxwell 06:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the last GMaxwell one has what I assume are dead apple blossoms all over him. -Ravedave 14:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
He just needs a bath, he also has cobwebs. I assume they hose down the memorial from time to time... I'm not exactly allowed to go and clean him off. :) Cloning them all out would be a pain and would be make the image further from reality. :) The prior image was somewhat dirty too, but some of the dirt was cloned out. --Gmaxwell 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delist There must be a gazillion photographs of this Lincoln monument. This one has not got the extras to make it featured. Janderk 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • delist not a good pic--Childzy talk contribs 13:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Grecian Cat[edit]

Greece-Cat.jpg

Too small, non-notable, bad JPEG compression artifacts. Does not represent Wikipedia's best work.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - never liked this photo. Renata 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nom. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. -- moondigger 19:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. -- Glaurung 05:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Interesting to see the different reaction: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cat in greece --Fir0002 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, standards have risen a lot since then. Look at this - these were the days when the first photograph and the only picture of Frederic Chopin were being nominated, and where if an image was listed here for fourteen days with four or more supporting votes including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination, and the general consensus is in its favor, it could be promoted to FP status! —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keepsomewhat aesthetic--Vircabutar 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)--
  • Delist like the cat but the feature definitely isn't FPC material. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Daĉjoпочта 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I remember when this previously went up for delisting and I was puzzled that people supported it. :) --Gmaxwell 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aesthetics easily trump its (minor IMHO) technical flaws. --Bagginz 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Gold Coast[edit]

Gold Coast (from The Spit).jpg

Too small, slight quality problem. Also has no {{FPC}} tag.

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Abbey of Senanque[edit]

Abbey-of-senanque-provence-gordes.jpg

Too small, bad quality.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nom. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Badly oversharpened, grainy, low res. -- moondigger 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Extremely grainy, especially around roof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ24 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 17 July 2006
  • Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Very Large Array[edit]

USA.NM.VeryLargeArray.02.jpg

Too small, blown highlights.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nom. It would be nice to have a similer, but better image. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, per above. -- moondigger 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, IMHO featureworthy -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist but we should list it on a page of previously featured images that need replacement... This is a subject that should be fairly easy to take truly fantastic pictures of... --Gmaxwell 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


National Gallery, London[edit]

Nat-gall-lond-tr-sq.jpg

Too small, artifacting, a lot of people.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, per nom. -- moondigger 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent scene. "A lot of people"?? Would you oppose a photograph of Time Square because it has people in it? That's a ridiculous argument. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-17 19:11
Size is more of a problem here. I'm am leaving a note on the uploader's talk page to see if he can provide a higher resolution version. Glaurung 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Daĉjoпочта 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. An infinitely better image could easily be re-taken, minus the blue light of course, but that is hardly relevent to the National Gallery as it was for a PEPSI commercial. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Sainte Jeanne d'Arc Church[edit]

Too small, bad JPEG compression artifacts.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nom. Also bad composition. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, per nom. -- moondigger 20:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Glaurung 05:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. ----Markmorker 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
User's only contribution. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Fennec[edit]

This image of a fennec, while it may be cute, is too small, grainy, and has a licence that makes it undesirable on FP - the deprecated {{PD}} tag.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Fenecs are so cute. If only there was a better image available. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. -- moondigger 20:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist grainy and small --Glaurung 06:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per Nom. -- AJ24 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Pearl Harbor[edit]

PearlHarbor Sm.jpg

Too small, some pixelation and artifaction.

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


PetronasTowers[edit]

The Petronas Towers

Extreme image cut-off. Not the Best Wikipedia has to offer. Is the image computer-animated? If so, it should be replaced with an image of the completed project and completely portraying both towers (image appears fake). Also, image blurred surrounding the Towers' connecting bridge.

  • Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't appear fake to me, and I feel that the cutting off doesn't detract from it's appeal. PPGMD 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom--Vircabutar 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PPGMD --Fir0002 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree that the image looks fake -- and that's because it shares some of the same faults as the Pangong Lake image. The unnatural blue color in the sky is very much like that in the Pangong Lake image. It also exhibits vignetting, oversaturation and excessive contrast. At 100% it's obviously a soft image that's been oversharpened to compensate. -- moondigger 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a gorgeous photo of the towers -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per moondigger --Glaurung 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Its a spectacular view but not a spectacular image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent angle and lighting. I don't understand why you are criticizing all of these images when viewed at their maximum resolution. The important thing is that they look right at the resolution used in their respective articles. This isn't Commons FPC, after all. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-19 20:23
    • Because the featured picture criteria say images should be "high quality," not to mention "Wikipedia's best work." This image violates both criteria. If the "important thing" is that they look alright at the resolution used in their articles, then why bother with minimum resolution requirements at all? A 240x320 image is more than big enough for the vast majority of articles. Why bother keeping the yellow mite image nearly 4000 pixels tall? Why keep the Grauman's Theatre image at more than 4000 pixels and 5.8 MB? These are all rhetorical questions, of course. The reason why we judge featured picture candidates at their full resolutions is obvious -- because they don't deserve to be featured if they only look acceptable in thumbnails. Besides which, this image doesn't even look good in the thumbnail, IMO. It looks fake, as if somebody used the paint bucket tool in Photoshop to fill in the sky with the most unnatural, garish shade of blue they could find, then purposefully darkened the corners a bit to simulate vignetting.-- moondigger 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Note. Compare the sky in this image with the sky in the Grecian Cat image immediately below -- despite its faults, the cat image contains a realistic blue sky. -- moondigger 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well the image was obviously taken at twilight, when such a sky is perfectly expected. See Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg --Fir0002 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • It doesn't look like it was taken at twilight to me, and the metadata seems to indicate it was taken well before twilight, if it can be trusted. Even if it was taken at twilight, the contrast and saturation have been pumped up beyond reasonable limits; see the STS-98 image you worked on for a more realistic depiction of a twilight sky. Besides, you certainly can't claim the Pangong Lake image was taken at twilight, and it shares the same fake-looking blue color that the sky in this one has. (BTW, I think the saturation on the Melbourne twilight image is a bit much too... though certainly nowhere near as pumped as Pangong Lake or this image.) -- moondigger 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Look I'm not talking about Pagong Lake, and it has no relevance to this image. They are unique and distinct. Independent if you see what I mean. And of course it's taken at twlight, as otherwise the lights wouldn't be on! --Fir0002 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • The relevence to this image is the sky. You're suggesting that the sky is the color it is because the image was taken at twilight. Yet it shares the same color as the Pangong lake image, which was clearly not taken at twilight. Fine, then... forget about the Pangong Lake image here. This particular color does not resemble any sky I've ever seen in person, twilight or otherwise. It's a result of pumping contrast and saturation up beyond reasonable limits, IMO. It's one of the reasons I oppose it. -- moondigger 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
                • The mistake you seem to be making is that you're assuming your eyes see colour and light the same way a camera does. I've taken many many photos that have a very similar sky to this, both during the day and at night. Any clear blue sky has the potential to look like that if you expose it that way (eg underexpose), but it is particularly easy to do at twilight simply because that is the luminosity of the sky that typically corresponds with the correct exposure for the nightscape - give or take a stop or two, anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Diliff, I've been shooting landscapes for 20 years. I know how film and digital sensors react to light and color, and how that differs from the way eyes react to light and color. I've taken over 15,000 exposures on digital alone, probably triple that on film. The closest I've ever gotten to this color is with Fuji Velvia slide film, a film commonly referred to as "DisneyChrome" and well-known to be oversaturated and super-high contrast. Even on Velvia, no matter what the exposure or time of day, I've never gotten something quite as garish as the Pangong Lake sky. See this image: [2] for an example of what a properly-exposed twilight sky looks like on Velvia. Only when I've underexposed Velvia at twilight have I gotten a few exposures somewhat similar to the Petronas Towers sky. But even then, I would have to pump up the saturation even more post-scan to match it.
On digital, I've never gotten anything anywhere close to this in an out-of-camera exposure, even if I underexposed. It would be easy to make one look like this, though... just move the saturation slider a couple dozen points to the right, and boost the contrast too. My complaint is that when people pump up the contrast and saturation post-exposure, they should take care to insure they're not pushing too far beyond what's natural. That's clearly what happened in both the Pangong Lake image and this one.
I never said it was impossible to have skies look like this; I said that when they do it's due to overzealous post-processing. Of course there are photographers who prefer oversaturated, high-contrast images, no matter how fake they look. I'm not one of them... and furthermore, even if such images are marginally acceptable in a travel brochure, they're entirely inappropriate in an encyclopedia, which I believe should aim for accurate representations. -- moondigger 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but what I'm saying, and what I assume Diliff is saying, is that skies like that are not always the result of overzealous post-processing. Here's another example, I took this for my brother when he made that site. That's straight out of my Kodak. I'm not knocking your experience, but personally in the short time I've been taking photos, I've often come across twilight skies which look like that in reality. Another possiblity, although it doesn't look that way, is that it was an exposure bracket and the sky was part of the under-exposed frame. Maybe it's just Australian/Asian skies :-) --Fir0002 09:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and another twilight shot by Diliff: Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg --Fir0002 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Fir, neither of the images you linked as examples have skies that look anything like the Petronas Towers sky to me. They look good; they resemble skies I have seen in real life and have photographed myself. As I said previously, the Petronas sky looks like somebody picked a garish blue shade and filled in the sky with the paint bucket tool in Photoshop. Do you really not see the difference between this one (garish, fake-looking) and those you linked to (pleasing, natural, realistic)? -- Moondigger 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I do see a slight difference, but not a lot to go on to say it's "fake". If you look in my image, it shows a nice gradient. Due to the size of the towers (and therefore the trajectory of the camera), the towers would be depicted on the part of the gradient where the colors look like that. I don't see it was being too unrealistic personally. --Fir0002 10:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've recieved confirmation from the photographer. The image was taken "7 or 8 o'clock in the evening". See my talk page on the commons for his complete response. --Fir0002 11:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but it still looks overprocessed to me, making the sky look unrealistic (despite being taken late in the day) and has other problems (previously listed). All of the other twilight sky examples you or I have posted look much more realistic to me. -- Moondigger 02:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What you're not realizing is that there is more to "quality" than resolution and sharpness. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 05:35
        • If all I was concerned about was resolution and sharpness, I would never criticize composition, lighting, color, contrast, saturation, etc. In fact, I tend to put more stock in those aspects than resolution... but I was told when I started participating here that resolution was important, that even images that met the requirement might be rejected unless they exceeded the stated requirements. So I consider resolution when I analyze images, even though I might not have given it as much weight under other circumstances. -- moondigger 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Various things are important. But none is be-all end-all, as you seem to suggest. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:44
  • Delist per others. Really looks bad enlarged. gren グレン 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Fantastic image with unfortunate compression artefacts. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. We have to be able to do better than this. It's not as if it's "hard" to get a shot of the towers at night. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per Samsara. Jono (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delist. While it is a beuatiful image to look at, I think it is too cut-off and lacks enough encyclopaedic value to be featured. say1988 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. washed out and blurry at full res. --Dschwen 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Image is Copyrighted. -- AJ24 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted 11 Delist, 5 Keep Fir0002 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A comment from the photographer[edit]

A few days ago I found out that this photograph I took in Kuala Lumpur more than three years ago was no longer a featured picture on English Wikipedia. At the time when it was featured, I felt really happy about it, so finding out that this is no longer the case has been a bit of a disappointment. Of course, I can perfectly understand that not everyone would like the picture, but what I have found really distressing is the fact that people are suggesting that the picture has been heavily postprocessed, even using the word "fake" to describe it. On the contrary, I can assure that this is not the case at all. In fact, the picture is not even cropped and the only processing it has received was the digital copy from the film which was done at the Tesco store in England where I had several rolls of film developed. This is an important fact that many Wikipedia users seem to have overlooked: the original picture is film, not digital, which explains why the quality of the image in terms of lighting is much superior to what you would expect from an originally digital image. The metadata do not come from the moment the picture was taken, but rather from the equipment used by Tesco to create a CD of pictures from developed film. I have to say that the developed picture looks even more impressive, sharper and less blurry, than the digital copy. I don't really know how I managed to take such beautiful pictures (I have another similar one); I am not a professional photographer and I didn't even use a tripod; I was just holding my camera in front of the towers. I think I was lucky to take the picture at a moment of the day (evening of Thursday, 13 May 2004) when the lighting conditions were particularly good and, besides, I was using a very good camera, my dear old Nikon FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm 1/1.8 lens. The 50 mm lens made it difficult for me to get as much of the towers as I wanted in the picture. The angle is actually the effect of me trying to make them fit within the picture while I was standing in front of the towers. At the end of my Asian trip, in July 2004, I took my rolls of film to the Tesco store on Newmarket Road in Cambridge, England, where I had them developed. They gave me a CD with the digital copies of the pictures for each roll. That's where the image I uploaded comes from. Later, a Commons user edited the picture with some sort of blur effect to make it look less grainy. This is the story of this picture, plain old-fashioned photography with a no-frills Nikon FM2 camera. --Gelo 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian_bull[edit]

Indonesian Bull

Not only is the image of a very poor level of photography, the subject is undecided. The photo could be about anything: hurricane destruction, farming, et al. I believe the original subject was the hut. Again, very poor quality.

  • Nominate and Delist. - AJ24 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I agree with AJ24's criticism's above. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--Vircabutar 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And why is this an image worthy of FP status? -- AJ24 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Besides the problems already mentioned, the sky is blown out and it doesn't meet resolution requirements. -- moondigger 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Neutralitytalk 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, I like the picture... but it's not a good representation of the animal nor does it explain what the whole scene is. gren グレン 02:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, it's still an awesome composition. However, I will vote delist on the basis of small size. Original nom was Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_candidates/April-2004#Indonesia_Bull. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - Per above. Viva La Vie Boheme 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 8 edits outside user page.BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-20 14:58
  • Delist. Too small... nice image though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, reluctantly - excellent composition, but FPs have to be higher resolution than 640x480, IMO; this doesn't even get close. I hope the contributor has a higher-resolution version. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, small res, vauge subject. HighInBC 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Really not among WPs best. Blown out sky, exteremely low res and arbirtary subject matter. I couldn't tell if the hut is just old and roitten or if it was a hurricane that did this. --Dschwen 18:26, 24 July 2006 totally (UTC)

Delisted 11 Delist. 1 Keep --Fir0002 10:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tawaret[edit]

Tawaret.jpg

Image size too small; there is nothing special about it; not a FP quality and doesn't have a "wow" factor

  • Nominate and Delist. - Vircabutar 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. howcheng {chat} 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. per nom. -- AJ24 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting picture, good quality, serves well to illustrate two distinct articles. Nominator should inform uploader (per instructions), and can request higher resolution copy from him. --Davepape 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep-- Chris 73 | Talk 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per Vircabutar. -- Moondigger 14:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small, uncomfortably close cropping, too bright background.--ragesoss 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Far too small. --liquidGhoul 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Yamdok Yumtso[edit]

Not sure how anybody failed to notice this before, but this image has no source. It was tagged for having no source on August 14 and is scheduled to be deleted on August 21, so this is kind of an emergency delisting request. Additionally, the uploader's talk page is full of no source warnings.

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment--If it's going to be deleted, why does it need to be delisted? If it's deleted, wouldn't it be delisted by default? Also, the delisting won't go into effect until after the deletion. Too bad there's no source--it's actually a pretty nice picture. Joniscool98 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Because all references to it being a FP have to be removed too. I'm not counting on the deleting admin to recognize what all of those are, but those who close the delist noms know the procedure a lot better. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah all right...in that case, Delist...I agree (unless the source info can be found).Joniscool98 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. No license no FP, it's that simple. And the user apparently completely ignores the talkpage messages although is is currently active in WP. --Dschwen 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist if no better source info can be found. The alleged photographer, "Milo Peng", appears to actually be the name of an iced drink (see Nestlé Milo). --Davepape 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist. With no appropriate license, the image is inelligible for featured status, regardless of any previous votes on the matter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I opposed the promotion of this one originally for other reasons. I don't know how we missed the license problems then. -- Moondigger 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist: Thanks to the help of an anon, the image has now been sourced. However, the license at the source location is cc-by-nc-2.0, which is still inappropriate for Wikipedia. Once it is orphaned, it will need to be deleted. --Hetar 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted, so no point keeping it in the FP listing. Delisted. Raven4x4x 08:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Ottawa Parliament[edit]

Parliament3-big.jpg

Too small and the whole sky is blown out.

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It would be easy to get a better photo of the parliment buildings (they're very photogenic). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist How did that even pass FP? Way to small and completly overblown sky. HighInBC 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The smaller version has been delisted in October 2004. I don't see when the larger version has been relisted... --Bernard 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that might explain it. I was going through all the old POTDs and found this one with no nomination for FP status or nomination for delisting either. This one is really just a larger version of a delisted FP after all, so this exercise is pretty much moot then. howcheng {chat} 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with reasons above. Mikeo 01:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. -- Moondigger 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously delisted. howcheng {chat} 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Twilight wilderness big.jpeg[edit]

Twilight wilderness big.jpeg

Way too many JPEG compression artifacts.

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Holy jpeg artifacts batman! HighInBC 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Could almost be a nice illustration for the Compression artifact article. Nice subject, though. Mikeo 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think a lot of it is due to a poor scan and incorrect blackpoint, washing out the contrast. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. -- Moondigger 17:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider[edit]

Original discussion

Now that the copyright issue has been cleared up, let's start this delist nomination over and discuss the image itself instead. howcheng {chat} 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

V20001.jpg

Too small, slight discolouration, non-remarkable.

  • Nominate and delist. - —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist; there also appears to be some slight vignetting around the edges. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent image of a winch launch. PPGMD 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not really convinced that it shows a winch launch very well. To me, a non-gliding person (although I did pilot a glider once in Hawaii), it just looks like a big cable attached to the glider. I think a good image of a winch launch would show the winch as well. howcheng {chat} 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The picture you are suggesting would be very boring, a winch launch is a very different type of launch, at times the glider is nearly vertical, it's quite a rush during your first launch, which this illustrates quite well. PPGMD 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
        • When I first saw this image, I didn't realise that the glider was vertical; I thought the photo was just slanted. A better image would show the horizon to get a proper idea of the angle of the craft. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Keep The glider isn't vertical and shouldn't appear as such. Using winch launch, the angle should be 40-50° and never over 70°. I vote keep the image, the photo can be assumed to be horizontal and the glider is near the optimum angle. hrf 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist. Per Nom. -- AJ24 23:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Doesn't meet minimum size requirements. Mikeo 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per nom. Duran 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Doesn't meet minimum size requirements, cropped too tightly. Also I disagree that it's a particularly good depiction of a winch launch. Per Howcheng, that cable hanging down out of the frame doesn't tell us much. Just doesn't seem like FP material. -- Moondigger 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Too small, and unless it was explained to me it looks more like a kite than a winch launch. A FP should make it's subject clear and not lead to confusion. HighInBC 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too tight a crop, and ack Howcheng. Strongly disagree with PPGMD, I can only speculate what Howcheng has in mind but I'd suggest an extreme zoom lens shot from a plane above and behind the glider looking along the cable, maybe showing a bit of the horizon. It'll be difficult but way more instructive and spectacular. --Dschwen 13:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist does not represent the finest of wikipedia Michaeln36 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The winch is approximately 1 kilometre away from the glider so getting that in shot is tricky. Do pictures have to be self-explanatory? It was Picture of the Day last year so someone else liked it. JMcC 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure it's not up to current dimension standards, but it's not too far off. Sharp, well composed image with nothing major to warrant delisting. --Fir0002 11:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. I saw worst images in FP page and this is just much better. Only the size is a problem. Arad 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station[edit]

Moscow Metro, Kievskaya station.jpg

Barely meets size requirements (1000x667 px), blown-out highlights, and an overall green color cast (probably as a result of fluorescent lighting).

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per overblown ceiling, small size, greenish tint, and the motion blur detracts from the picture in my opinion. HighInBC 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Interesting composition and motion blur, but not terribly encyclopedic, IMO. Blown highlights and green color cast don't help either. -- Moondigger 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As someone who has provided dozens of Moscow subway pictures (none FP material), I was alway surprised that this one was a featured picture. InvictaHOG 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain This is an atmospheric image, it's technical failings only add to the atmoshpere. Here's the original discussion Kievskaya Metro Station--Mcginnly | Natter 11:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the motion blur and how that one woman is just standing there, but this could have been done better with a small aperture that would have gotten the same effect without the blown highlights. And the green cast doesn't help at all IMHO. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Very flawed from the technical perspective. Much better pictures can convey an appropriate atmosphere. --Lmsilva 17:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist has some qualities as a arty piece, but not very encyclopaedic Michaeln36 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Basilica of Mary Magdalene[edit]

STmaximin-Solitude.jpg

This image is obviously not up to standards; it's extremely grainy and out-of-focus (not to mention the tiny size of 115KB). Sorry, but it needs to be delisted at once.

  • Delist. -GarrettRock 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist --Vircabutar 02:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Does not resemble the best in Wikipedia anymore. Mikeo 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Standards have changed, this one is way to small, and grainy even then. HighInBC 15:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, all has been said. --Dschwen 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist as per Mikeo -- Michaeln36 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Zermatt and Matterhorn[edit]

Zermatt and Matterhorn.jpg

This is a good and encyclopaedic photo, but with a resolution of 600x604 px it is much too small for a featured picture. It is also somewhat blurry.

  • Delist. --KFP 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist too small, there must be tons of better pics of that subject. --Dschwen 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Tiny, over and under exposed. HighInBC 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist as per HighInBC. Michaeln36 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per HighInBC. Nauticashades 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delisted, --KFP 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


London Eye panorama[edit]

Reflections visible, really poor stitching.

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm surprised people don't fall out of the half-cars more often. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Pretty bad stiching, blown out area, and low quality -Ravedave (help name my baby) 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, also tilted and blurry with blown-out sky. --KFP 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - This is a horrible London panorama. The sky is overexposed, it was taken out of a glossy window, and there are numerous stitching mistakes. The panorama isn't even widely used on notable Wikipedia pages. --Ineffable3000 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist How come this ever became featured? I saw no voting page among the links. --Janke | Talk 06:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This was promoted long long ago, before the advent of voting (I don't know exactly what happened back then, maybe it was just one user's opinion). There was a delist nomination in July 2004 which garnered no comments, so I guess it never got delisted. Considering it's missing from WP:FP and WP:FPV it might actually have been delisted, but there's no record either way. I didn't notice how bad it was until I was adding {{picture of the day}} to the old POTDs (this one was back in June 2004). howcheng {chat} 06:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Dreadful quality (image and stitching). Nauticashades 18:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Just not pretty. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I did not even know it was featured. At the time I uploaded it there was not much London-Fotos in Wikipedia, so I just thought it would be nice for people to see how it looks like from above. But it was just a snapshot ;-) Fantasy 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - I think the reasoning goes unsaid here. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per all -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 06:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- One reason (among others) why this panorama contains stitching errors is because the viewpoint is not stationary, and cannot be. The passenger capsules on the London Eye are in constant motion, albeit at a slow rate. Thus any panorama made from separately captured images will necessarily have regions of discontinuity, because the camera's nodal point isn't fixed across the component images. Specialized equipment should be used to take a single-shot panorama of this angle. --Wickerprints 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Water colored by iron[edit]

IronInRocksMakeRiverRed.jpg

Not only is this picture to small, but it is also too blurry. If you look at the back row of trees, a large amount of JPEG artifacts can also be seen. No real detail can me made out, due to shallow depth-of-field (I assume - it could just be bad quality). Standards have changed since it was promoted.

  • Strong Delist. - Nauticashades 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nominator. --KFP 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a NASA image, you can often find a bigger version, as far as being blurry, thats sort of the point when you shoot waterfall images, most photographers slow the shutter speed down to blur the water to give it a pleasing effect. PPGMD 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but just look at the trees behind it: the quality is horrible. If someone can find a bigger version, please upload it. Nauticashades 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Doesn't meet resolution requirements, technical problems. -- Moondigger 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Too small, nice picture though, HighInBC 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Too small, bad quality - I can easily see the lossy compression --WikiSlasher 14:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is one of my favorite pictures, I think it has good color, and cannot see any "blurs". AndonicO 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The color may be great, but the quality is more important. Aside from being very small, this picture's quality is horrible. Look at the back row of trees: barely nothing is discernable. It's just a blur of colors, not to mention the artifacts. Nauticashades 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Great shot, poor size and quality. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Janke | Talk 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Cool image, not a feature-quality image. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - Sadly i have to say delist it. Too small for FP requirements. Nice image though. --ZeWrestler Talk 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you mind stating why? NauticaShades(talk) 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The picture meets my standards for a FP, sizewise it is big enough to illustrate an article (which is what we do here after all), and the minor fuzzyness in the trees in the back is fine by me, as the waterfall itself is displayed well. On a side note, I also feel that the FP standards by many editors are too high. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Lets look at the critera:
          • Be of high quality: Failed. The quality is awful.
          • Be of a high resolution: Failed. 607 x 537 is nowhere near 1000 px.
          • Be Wikipedia's best work: Failed. Even non-featured images are better quality.
NauticaShades(talk) 10:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lake Fryxell[edit]

Replacement Candidate.


This isn't exaclty a delisting. I am trying to get the current Featured Picture replaced by the better Commons Featured Picture version of it. The Wikipedia version has already been tagged as superseded and most instances of the image have been moved to the other version, except Lake Fryxell. This is a vote whether to delist the current one and replace it withe the better (in my opinion) one. Okay, I'm now trying to get the Wikipeida replaced with the original un-retouched version. If the vote doesn't pass, I'll replace all Commons instances of the picture (in articles) with the Wikipedia one.

  • Replace. - NauticaShades(talk) 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose replacement of an image with an inferior version. The current featured image is higher resolution and has a more natural color balance. The commons version has an unnatural color balance that shows as a purple tint in the shadows of the mountain. Contrast and sharpness of the original could be adjusted without resorting to the overprocessed version nominated here. -- Moondigger 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist original and oppose promotion of alternate version. After reading the image page I'm now opposed to all versions of this image for featured status. The author explicitly states that the entire sky is artificial, created with the color gradient tool in photoshop. That doesn't represent reality, and shouldn't be featured at all. -- Moondigger 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe that other retouched pictures are Featured Pictures, though. NauticaShades(talk) 06:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats possibly true, but there is a significant portion voters here who would and do oppose images that have been retouched in that way. Just because images have been promoted in the past, doesn't make the voting against a re-touched image invalid now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
        • There's a difference between touching up the brightness or removing noise, both of which are acceptable, and digitally replacing the entire sky. Adding or removing elements in this way has always been frowned upon. Raven4x4x 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist both. As per moondigger's comments, it has been significantly re-touched. The original image was overly cropped at the horizon and an editor has artificially placed a gradient sky above the edge of the frame to improve the composition. (which it has, but it is no longer reliably encylopaedic and I don't think we should be setting that sort of precedent (if it is not already too late!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We aren't really responsible for delisting the Commons Picture, however. NauticaShades(talk) 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was lost in my own megalomania for a while there. ;) I'll settle for delisting the original then. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about replacing it with this? Note: I've now uploaded and added it. NauticaShades(talk) 07:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist and oppose replacement. NauticaShades' version replacement candidate is too tightly cropped. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not "my version", it's the original. The others aren't actually less cropped, someone just added an artifical gradient. NauticaShades(talk) 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist and oppose replacement. Wholeheartedly agree with Diliff (except the megalomania part ;-) ). --Dschwen 11:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What about the original? NauticaShades(talk) 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hm, it is an interesting place, but the icesheet lacks scale and the hills are shadowy. I guess I'd weak support it. --Dschwen 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiritimati[edit]

Kiritimati-EO.jpg

This is not an exceptionally sharp or detailed satellite photograph. Compression artifacts and poor stitching are visible over the ocean. Additionally, a considerable portion of the island is obscured by clouds.

  • Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. The nomination said it all. NauticaShades(talk) 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Never did like that one, not impressive. | AndonicO 10:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's pretty much the same as a number of astronaut photos. howcheng {chat} 03:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Fly Eye Delist[edit]

Dragonfly eye 3811.jpg

Not only is this image too small for today's standards, but it is not very good quality (DOF too shallow), and strangely cropped

  • Delist. - NauticaShades 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Steven 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Duran 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not to mention the glare spot.--HereToHelp 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tamar and Brunel Bridges[edit]

Tamar Bridge and Brunel or Royal Albert Bridge panorama.jpg

Too distorted, blown highlights.

  • Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Steven 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A pity to delist this picture inspite of blown highlights. I don't think distortion is a problem, it reminds me of a M. C. Escher painting! -- Alvesgaspar 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I always wondered how that got to be a featured picture in the first place. | AndonicO Talk 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - how did this get through the first time? Yeuch. —Vanderdeckenξφ 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the Earth revolves around a sun. Deal with it. drumguy8800 C T 01:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What does the earth revolving around the sun have to do with it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per blown highlights and distortion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)`
  • Delist per nominator. -- Moondigger 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Are the bridges actually curved like this in reality? -Arad 22:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not nearly to this extreme, although the approach to the Brunnel bridge is quite curved.Laïka 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist; confusing. Laïka 22:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Yuck. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 22:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question wheres the original nom? -- Coasttocoast 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Here. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, lol it seems that every picture there has been delisted :D -- Coasttocoast 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wakizashi[edit]

Unsharp picture of a wakizashi

I do not know when (and why!) this was featured, but it probably wouldn't even get one single supporting vote today. I like the composition and subject. Its technical quality, however, is a different matter:

  • extremely unsharp
  • very noisy
  • a slight tilt
  • artifacts
  • very badly edited (Gaussian blur seems to have been used to get rid of some of the noise, however that wasn't done uniformly.)
  • blown-out highlights

That this is on the front page today is somewhat embarrassing.

NOTE: original nomination.
  • Delist. - mstroeck 11:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Noisy background and parts of the sword seem oversharpened. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delist - when I saw it on the front page I came here to see if anyone had set it up for delisting; if they hadn't, I'd have done it myself. A good subject but an awful photo, embarrassing to the Wiki. Maybe in future a person/team should check the upcoming front page pics and check any which may not be up to par? -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't usually check the rerun images when I schedule the PsOTD, but I can probably start doing that. They are scheduled one month in advance, so anyone who wants to can check through November 2006. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Just had a browse through and they invariably look superb; the only one that could be considered close to contentious is Bison skull pile due to its relatively small size. However, given that a) this was acknowledged at the time of nomination, b) the picture is from the 1800s and c) it's unbelievably striking I don't see a problem. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • As a side note, the reruns are currently being pulled from Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 02. howcheng {chat} 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • A lot of those don't meet modern standards - is there some way of having a mass review of them? -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Besides the current process of nominating them individually, no. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - I thought the same thing when I saw this on the front page. The white cloth looks horribly -- Coasttocoast 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I am the author of the image, and I also agree that it is not up to current standards. (Was a very dark environment). I completely forgot that it was a featured image -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per author, edges are too dark to see the shape. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Horrible quality. On a side style note, please refrain form writing bias captions. NauticaShades 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Zabriskie Point[edit]

Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG

No longer in any article (replaced in Zabriskie Point by a panoramic image taken by the same author) and it's a little small anyway (800x600).

  • Delist. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - superseded. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not in article, not FP. Also it is 68k and low res. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per above. NauticaShades 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New Scotland Yard[edit]

New Scotland Yard

I doubt this picture would pass today, as it's little more than a picture of a sign. Doesn't seem striking or informative. - Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist. Completely agree - it doesn't add much to any article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Too small, depicts subject poorly, sign blocks building. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above - this could be a sign for anything. tiZom(2¢) 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small, and also doesn't meet the new criterion 5 (finally put to use!). NauticaShades 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist bad on windows. gren グレン`

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This delisting is an interesting example of decisions being made by members who appear not to be familiar with the subject of the photograph. "Sign blocks building" is a most extraordinary comment. As the opening paragraph of the article on Scotland Yard points out, the sign is a famous London icon. Every UK news broadcast about Scotland Yard features almost exactly the shot depicted here, largely because the building itself is very dull, and the sign outside it is its most distinctive feature. The photograph may not be large enough and may have other technical inadequacies but it nevertheless constitutes the definitive image, not just of Scotland Yard, but of the Metropolitan Police as an institution. Russ London 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

American White Ibises[edit]

American white ibis2.jpg

This one is too small and too artifacted by modern FP standards.

  • Nominate and Delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist too small, too many jpeg artifacts. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per HighInBC. NauticaShades 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per HighInBC. Duran 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. i like this picture, i dont think the artifacts or the size take away from it significently.Pigottsm 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. NauticaShades 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Radcliffe Camera (March 2003)[edit]

Radcliffe-camera-oxford.jpg

This FP has recently been superseded by Diliff's Image:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg.

  • Nominate and delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 12:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This one is way below res standards and the new FP is very similar but with much higher quality. --Dschwen 13:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - Alvesgaspar 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Was going to get around to nominating this one eventually. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Superseded. NauticaShades 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Superseded. JanSuchy 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Well, sooner or later, all FPs are going to be replaced by ones made by Diliff. --Arad 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Superseded, and too small anyways. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

American Burying Beetle[edit]

This picture is not only too small by today's standards, but the quality is horrible. It has blown highlights, it is unsharp, and it is very grainy, not to mention those borders.

  • Delist. - NauticaShades 18:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom gren グレン 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Nauticashades that the quality is bad by today standards. But delisting the picture is like "revising the past" (it immediately comes to my mind George Orwell's 1984), and I believe we shouldn't do that. On the contrary, by delisting a recent picture we are just correcting an error of judgement. - Alvesgaspar 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is the entire point of delisting: too clean out old Featured Pictures that don't meet standards anymore. As Wikipedia's pictures' quality improve, so must its Featured Pictures. Arguements on whether old FPs should be delisted or not should be done at the talk page or at the Village Pump, not here, which is bordering on WP:POINT, in my opinion. NauticaShades 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Consensus can change, and what is considered a featured picture is not set in stone. We can always leave a note that images used to be featured; we're not deleting any sign that it ever was and throwing it down the memory hole. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Fir0002 22:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delist - I can't believe the level of support for this picture which, by today's standards, is woeful. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. The FP list is fluid. There is no reason in keeping poor quality FPs for the sake of preserving history. Change is inevitable and necessary. It keeps standards high and wikipedia benefits. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Alvesgaspar's comments --ZeWrestler Talk 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe the support for this image - if it was merely too small by modern standards then yes, it could probably stand. However, this is a horrific photograph with numerous flaws and an atrocity of a border - having this as 'featured' is an embarrassment for Wikipedia if you ask me, and, as has been said before, damaging the way that the delisting process works just to prove a point is not something which Wikipedia supports. This is just silly. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice at Night[edit]

The "Quai des États-Unis" in Nice, France.

I'm glad to be nominating a picture that does meet the size requirements, but simply does not meet the other criteria. This image does not only have glaringly obvious (not to mention distracting) blown highlights, but there are jpeg artifacts very visible in the bottom right in the trees and the distant hills, as well as the background being very unsharp. The motion blur of the cars is also distracting and is not being used to illustrate anything. The compistion is also just too busy.

  • Delist. - NauticaShades 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • delist, just blurry all around Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist JanSuchy 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Nice pun on "glaringly" obvious blown highlights :-P • Leon 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Terrible picture. The blown highlights are very distracting here. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Blown hightlights. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted per unanimous consensus after 8 days --NMChico24 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Habanero[edit]

This picture no longer meets the criteria for WP:FPC and should be delisted. I saw it as picture-of-the-day.. aiiesh. Blown highlights, (sort of) low resolution, blur, noise.

  • Delist drumguy8800 C T 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Deslist blown highlights, hotspots, replacable. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, all sorts of issues. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above.--Bridgecross 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - I saw it on the homepage and came straight here. Something really needs to be done about the whole "we should keep older FPs even though they're crud" debate, since IMHO it contributes heavily to these bad pictures slipping through the net and onto the main page. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 23:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per above. NauticaShades 09:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. We already have a better version Alvesgaspar 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per other contributors. mstroeck 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Red fox with prey[edit]

Vulpes vulpes with prey.jpg

This image is quite dreadfully oversharpened.

  • Nominate and delist. - KFP (talk | contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems that a wrong version of the image was listed as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Weak delist. The image quality is still not very good. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist at 100%, it looks really weird. Noisy, oversharpened, jpg artifacts, etc. --Andrew c 22:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist agree that at 100% it's quite noisy and littered with artifacts. --NMChico24 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Something is not right here. It was not like this prior to it getting uploaded to the commons. the quality has since changed. take a look at the original version that i had uploaded, Image:Red fox with prey.JPG. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the original is still in the file upload history. The Commons page says that the "new" version was edited by Fir0002. Keep. I've reverted to the older version and besides, according to the original discussion, the sharpened version was not promoted. howcheng {chat} 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep - that looks more like the version that was promoted. I say keep it as featured. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry there's still some weird line ejecting up from the fox's neck. It's a good picture (certainly as good as any I'm capable of taking), but it's not the best Wikipedia has to offer, which IMHO is what a featured picture should be. --NMChico24 04:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The line on the neck is just a blade of grass -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist artifacts noise and blur. I've seen both edits, they both exhibit it. drumguy8800 C T 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I looks like it was taken out of focus and artificially sharpened. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. As with a lot of these, good for the article, not good for FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Terrible quality, definitely not an FP if judged by today's standards. mstroeck 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I fail to see the lack of quality your refering too. if this picture was not any good to begin with, then it wouldn't have made Feature status. -Puma5d04 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It was promoted last August, and judging by other pictures promoted around the same time, standards were somewhat lower. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Very blurry at full res. The colours look oddly warm, perhaps because it was taken at sunset/sunrise, but the lighting looks rather diffused. Also, anoying purple dot above the fox's back, and the cropping is too tight on the tail. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the purple dot is a out of focus flower which shouldn't be taken into consideration because the image is focused on the fox. --68.83.180.195 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above; odd colors and tail off edge of screen. --Bridgecross 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Yarnalgo 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. (8 delist votes that apply for the non-oversharpened version / 4 keep votes) --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hills south west of Sanandaj near the village of Kilaneh[edit]

Edit A for replacement

The colours look very fake, it was probably processed a lot on photoshop to reach this state. It fails the "Featured picture criteria 5": Be accurate. bogdan 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominate and delist. bogdan 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment There is extensive content pertinent to this discussion in this images FPC nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hills of Kurdistan Province HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist elephants weep. This has had more photoshopping than ... well I don't know. Just look at it. The clouds man, the clouds! In the sky! o______O - Francis Tyers · 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also some discussion at its talk page bogdan 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist While some playing with color levels etc is obviously OK, this crosses the line into "photoillustration". This clearly fails Featured picture criteria 5: "Be accurate". --Dgies 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While some saturation modification is evident I have seen scenes with my own eyes that seem saturated beyond realism. Could the original author be contacted to clarify what modifications have been made? The sharp edges on the cloud do indicate some sort of significant modification. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Go here to get in touch with the photographer and see some other examples of photoshopping. He has some other pictures that might be "good" if not "featured" status, but this one has no business appearing on the WP front page. ~ trialsanderrors 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Looks like photoshopping to me. I say delist straight away, if it turns out to be real later on it can always have another shot on the front page. My guess though is that it will stay on for the duration of front page, which is a shame. Sad mouse 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Delist This isn't just a variation of saturation and color levels, this is a third rate masking job per my comments at the talk page. We're Wikipedia, not the Idiot's Guide to Photoshopping. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hard not to put any bias in this: Would you mind visiting this page a little more often to comment on the nominations? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't really have much reason to question the judgement of the editors so far, but I'll stick around. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and others. 1ne 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Yep, it's the clouds; especially noticeable on the right. -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. This never should have been promoted in the first place. During the nomination period I recall mentioning which edit was reasonable in terms of saturation and post-processing, but IIRC the edits kept changing and I don't think the realistic one remained to be promoted at the end. -- Moondigger 00:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose delisting Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? does not say that image must be "natural". -- Petri Krohn 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If you oppose delisitng to make it easier to read maybe putting Keep is better. --Arad 20:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I bet you opponents are all Linux users, and just do not like this "lame" wallpaper. -- Petri Krohn 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What the hell? I don't use Linux... 1ne 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am making a far feteched guess that mabye you are refering to the windows cloud image? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Be natural" is not a criteria, but "Be accurate" IS, and hypersaturated colors, flat-colored sky, and sharp clouds do not accurately represent the subject. --Dgies 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just going to cite that (be accurate). 1ne 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By looking at the photographer's Flikr site, it looks like the original was this: Image:IR.Kurdistan.jpg. It had oversaturated color and blown highlights in the clouds. The edited version which made FP tried to fix the blown highlights and introduce a faux-HDR. The result is messed up clouds, and still funny colors. --Dgies 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    That picture appears to be not only oversaturated, but also changed the hues with photoshop. (as can be seen with the violet sky) bogdan 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Its a shame because I bet the original (as in before that guy photoshopped it) would be quite nice. - Francis Tyers · 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    The original already has the masked sky (see Image:Maskedsky.jpg). Oversaturation isn't as much of a problem, as it's somewhat reversible, but if you just paint over parts of the picture you can't fix the damage. ~ trialsanderrors 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per not being accurate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. How did that slip though? --Dschwen 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Oversaturated colors, completely blown areas in clouds, grainy landscape. Dschwen is right, were we all on vacation when that went through? --Bridgecross 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Sky is photoshpped and just looks terible and fake. Ursper
  • Delist per nom JanSuchy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't know why I didn't vote on it when it was originally up, but when I was writing the POTD, I scrutinized the nomination to see if it had been promoted incorrectly. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delist - I don't know where you lot were when I seemed to be the only person opposing first time round! I agree it may once have been a good image (although I suspect it wasn't a perfect exposure even to begin with) but whatever the photographer did to it in post-processing has made it pretty horrible. I seem to remember that this image attracted a lot of support from people with an apparent Iranian connection who don't usually vote here (and didn't vote on other noms at the time), which made me think "vote stacking", but I couldn't find any direct evidence of this. If I'd realised how much support the delisting would get, I'd have put it up earlier - shame it had to make it onto the main page first. --YFB ¿ 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually you always oppose so, no wonder you were the only one. ;-) --Arad 17:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think your smiley makes that an appropriate comment. To say I always oppose is completely untrue, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (see, I even agree with you sometimes), 7, 8, 9, 10) - I think perhaps I just expect higher standards from FPs than you do? Anyway, I think the other votes here speak for themselves. --YFB ¿ 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • hahaha. It's not that bad!. --Arad 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Very nifty look, I'd love to see a video game adopt that surreal color, but of course totally inappropriate for FP --frothT C 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Rogue River Oregon USA[edit]

Photoshopping example
Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg

PotD is usually a repository of great pictures, but this week has been a bit of a down week. Reading the nomination discussion, I have the feeling most editors did not actually look at the picture in full resolution. As someone just posted on the talk page, this picture suffers from massive Photoshopping and the resulting artifacts. Some details to look at:

  1. The tree bark and railing on the upper right
  2. The rockface above the graffiti on the middle right
  3. Various occurences of sunlit vegetation
  4. The water surface especially at the bottom

Since I can't modify this picture I used a simple one of my own to show what I think happened to this one: I used the original and sharpened the edges with a high sharpening radius, and increased both saturation and contrast. The result is an oversaturated image with lots of blown highlights, graininess and a lack of gradation in the details. I think the Rogue River image fails criterion #1 and should be delisted. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delist for all reasons above. This image just looks terrible at high resolution, look at the railing along the path to the right. The colors are completely unnatural. As one of the original opposers of this image, I could not believe the glowing comments of the supporters. --Bridgecross 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist for all the same reasons I opposed during the original nomination. Excessive color contrast and saturation have been substituted for luminance contrast (which can't be boosted without blowing out most of the highlights). Also, as Mikeo pointed out in the original nomination, heavy image deconvolution has been performed to reduce blurriness, which resulted in strange properties/artifacts plainly visible at full resolution. -- Moondigger 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist The pic looks stunning and vivid as a thumbnail, but way way way over sharpened. JPEG artifacts, blown highlights, and host of other problems. Jumping cheese Misc-tpvgames.gif Cont@ct 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - This seriously isn't a sketch?  Jorcogα  04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - looks incredible at 800x552 but there's just not enough detail to fill the high resolution --frothT C 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with all above. --Janke | Talk 14:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, looks hideously oversharpened. I'm surprised it passed, with 7 supports (counting the nom) and 4 opposes, that's not usually enough for our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Delist - Ouch. I thought it looked great, but in full resolution it looks hideous. It looks like one of my amateur photoshops. Hbdragon88 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I went ahead and added your sheep picture to Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? as one of the examples of what not to nominate. Redquark 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I cropped the kid out then. I don't think the sheep has privacy rights. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thurston lava tube[edit]

Heyy I think I see some graininess there.. no wait that's the cave
Edit 1 - Some of the grain removed, a very fast edit. Colors changed a bit.
Edit 2 - Most of the grain removed. Fast edit and i'm not sure if it helps.

One of our worst-quality featured photos. The thing is a gigantic compression artifact manifested in photo form! The original nomination is available here - I think what happened is that most of the Supports were for a previous lower-res verion.

  • Nominate: Delist as per above --frothT C 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per Froth. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Ugh, grainyness. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, there are image quality problems. Not too severe for justifying the delisting of a picture made of something as hard to photograph as the inside of a lava tube. Show me a better quality picture of the same thing that could be made available here! If you can't, I guess there must be something special about this picture. Mikeo 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Difficulty of the shot is no excuse for abysmal image quality. However that graininess seems repairable enough, anyone want to try their hand at it? --frothT C 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the opposite is applied regularly on FPC. If the subject is easy the pic must be perfect. --Dschwen 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. yep, it's too grainy. Witty lama 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Clean Although grainy, it can easily be cleaned up with somebody with the appropriate software. Sharkface217 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist OK, I'm looking at this in 33.3% in Photoshop and I can see the artifacts. Happy to reconsider if someone can clean this up, but this version has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | Unchanged. ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist I don't think any software can clean up the image when the detail is not there to begin with. And the difficulty of the shot does not outweigh the low quality. It doesn't seem that getting into this lava tube is so difficult anyway; it seems to be part of a guided tour with electric lights and a smooth path. --Bridgecross 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The noise could be cleaned up fairly easily, though striking a balance between noise cleanup and image detail might be tricky. I could give this a try later today. If anybody else has Noiseware Professional, I'd suggest starting with the "Weaker noise" preset and tweaking from there. -- Moondigger 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist It's not the graininess that made me say delist, but the sharpness. It looks like the camera had been moved during exposure.--antilived T | C | G 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Edits Ok, I'm made 2 edits very fast. I couldn't put much time. But here it is. Hope it helps. --Arad 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist still. Edit 2 did a good job of removing graininess but it's blurry now! --frothT C 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless I am mistaken, I believe this has been nominated for delist before. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You are indeed mistaken. This has never been nominated for delisting. howcheng {chat} 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist still Debivort 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


European Parliament[edit]

European Parliament

Composition isn't bad but the image quality is pretty poor - oversaturated, oversharpened and heavily shadow/highlighted, with significant artifacts particularly in the trees and around the sculler. The building isn't going anywhere, so there's not really any excuse for featuring a picture of this quality.

  • Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist, the oversharpening is horrific. If you look at the original you can see why -- it was blurry to start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit that the digital version is not a really good quality. Last time I had to face the fact that automatically digitized slides could not compete with images done with digicams. Today I would not put the image on the FPC list any more Andreas Tille, author
  • Keep Well, it has mostly good quality. And it is significant. Sharkface217 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it more significant than any other picture someone could go and take any day of the week? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Go today and make a comparable photo (and no, I would not use this as an argument to keep a photo with technical constraints in FP). Andreas Tille, author
  • Delist artificial sharpening reduces effective resolution and damages appearance, you cannot get information that is not there, this is not CSI. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Way oversharpened, low quality, etc... Inklein 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All I need to say.... Booksworm Talk to me! 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist and get another shot of it. Witty lama 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist for reasons stated by nom. --Bridgecross 20:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Strata Center[edit]

Strata Center

This isn't a terrible illustration but it's a bit lacking against today's FP standards: it seems tilted, the building is cut off at top left, the lamp-posts and overhanging branch in the foreground are distracting, most of the subject is in shadow and the brightly lit parts are blown. The image quality is pretty average and this version is also short of the resolution requirements (although Raul654 could probably provide a higher-res copy, I suspect the image quality of this would be poor, as the original was taken with what is now a fairly old, point-and-shoot 3.3MP digicam). It's been POTD twice and I suspect it's had its turn now - we should easily be able to get a better shot if we want a Strata Center FP.

  • Nominate for delisting --YFB ¿ 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist aberation visible even on down-sampled version (less than 1/4 original size), low dynamic range, not up to today's standard --antilived T | C | G 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist just on lighting alone I would delist. --Bridgecross 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Sharkface217 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - it's Stata, btw, not Strata. Do we want a replacement? I'll be near it in January. Debivort 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My numerous bads. I blame the geologists =). I won't move it now to save confusion, but apologies for not correctly calibrating my Mk.1 eyeball. A replacement would be excellent if you get the chance! --YFB ¿ 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - good call, although it would be a shame to see it gone. If Debivort could get a good replacement, upload it with a name that makes more sense, then we could feature it, delete this old one and be done! —Vanderdeckenξφ 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom -- mcshadypl TC 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rainforest walk[edit]

Rainforest walk - Australian National Botanic Gardens, by Fir0002
Edit 1, by Fir0002

I was looking through the panorama section of the FP gallery as linked from above somewhere and I notice this which looked like the white balance was way off (the plants are blue!) in thumbnail. When I opened the image to full size it looked horrible, way too much artificial sharpening and IMHO suffers quite similarly to another delist nomination happened just a while back.

  • Nominate and Delist --antilived T | C | G 08:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Good call. --Bridgecross 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I always considered this one of the most beautiful panos I've done. --Fir0002 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Artistic-wise, yes I do think it is very good, but technical problems limited this pano. Now I see why you sharpened it so much as it is very blurred, even though it had been downsampled quite a lot. And near the path on the right it just doesn't look natural, it looks like it had been inked over or something. --antilived T | C | G 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That edit introduced the same posterization effect as your Hawk edit (the inked over spot antilived referred to). Lighting is a bit crass. That contrastyness makes it look appealing in the small-size versions, but the full-size isn't that great. --Dschwen 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I honestly can't see the posterization you're talking about - can you crop/circle the area(s)? But either way I still like the original anyway --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. I support the delisting as it was very much borderline for opposition when it was first nominated for me, but I think standards have improved a little since then. I actually find the edit worse than the original. I don't see the ferns as being overly blue on my display. They look about right. Its just the overall impact of the image that doesn't sit right with me. It is a bit too contrasty, the sunlight burns highlights on the far right the image and as I said in the original nomination, it would benefit from being taken on an overcast day as the light would be more diffused. It also seems to lean significantly towards the right of the frame. Its hard to tell if there is a consistent lean across the whole frame though as there are no cues on the left side. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I noticed that there is only a lean in the edit. The original lacks this lean but has the horizontal banding effect that I noticed in the original nomination. Is this a stitching effect of some sort? And speaking of stitching faults, the bottom left edge of the path in the original has a major stitching fault. Summary: Both have faults, but it seems the original has more. By the way, you should consider shooting with RAW if you haven't started already. Last time I asked, you claimed it wasn't necessary. In a situation such as this, it would certainly have helped.Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)
      • Well in this particular image, not only was it not taken in RAW it was taken as a 2 megapixel image - I was on school camp with 2 GB card and space was getting tight! But in respect to the jpg/RAW battle I stick by the fact that RAW doesn't offer any advantages. Do you remember the ostrich nom? Well I actually shot that image in RAW as it was backlight and I thought I could get some more dynamic range in, and it gave me nothing extra in the blown areas. If I was to shoot this scene again I'd do it on a tripod (this one was hand held at ISO800) and do an exposure bracket. Overcast days are OK, but they tend to dull the colors --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I still stand by my point that at 2mp (downsampled from 8mp, 1/4 size), it should be sharp as a knife at full size, not like this. --antilived T | C | G 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but if you still believe that RAW offers no advantages, then you're completely ignorant about it. As for the shooting RAW with the ostrich nom, you also need to know what you're doing to maximise the benefits of RAW. When an image is overexposed as much as the highlights were in that shot, it doesn't matter if you use RAW or JPG. They're just plain blown. But if you had underexposed the image so that the highlights were no longer blown and brought out the shadows in RAW conversion, it would have looked FAR better than if you had done it with JPG. That is the sort of advantages you have. It doesn't automatically fix blown highlights if you don't control the exposure too. If you continue to shoot without consideration for this sort of thing, sure, you probably won't find any advantages with RAW. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you haven't tried to make the most of the format. In any case, perhaps you should invest in a portable hard drive based card reader. They cost much less than a single lens and it seems you would benefit from one if you keep running out of space. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • With all due respect I think you're wrong - perhaps you'd care to post a comparison of a scene shot with a RAW and a jpg and show me the error of my ways ;-) --Fir0002 11:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, no I'm not going to bother handing it to you on a platter. But I will give you a url to read. It doesn't relate specifically to the example I gave but it does explain why RAW gives a better output than JPG. If you think I'm wrong, can you explain how I'm wrong? What exactly am I wrong about? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
                • Well I think that you're wrong in saying that RAW offers advantages over jpeg. The article above gives no reasons at all to switch to RAW, with the only "advantages" are loose claims on imporved print quality which I know by experience is incorrect. In fact over at the Fredmiranda forums (where most people do use RAW), many people discribe a work flow where the original photo is taken in raw then converted out with DPP, then final tweaks in PS and then saved as a jpeg for printing. Why? Because most printers display even less dynamic range than a computer monitor and hence 16bit color of RAW is unnecessary and is not used in the print. Same with shadows, I can't see what usefull details RAW can get out of a pic that jpeg can't. I mean it's possible that an extremely dark picture taken in RAW can be massively lifted to reveal details that jpeg can't - but what's the pratical advantages? The quality of the lifted shadows is too rubbish to even consider using (except if you are a spy!). I might shoot a scene some time in the future with RAW and jpeg and post comparisons - unless you want to. However in any case if you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest we move it somewhere else as it is becoming irrelevant to this delist nom --Fir0002 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
          • One more thing... You're right, overcast days can dull the colours somewhat, but think about it.. This image was for the most part shaded from the sunlight anyway so the colours would have remained basically the same. What I was saying was that the bright overexposed parts lit by direct sunlight would not have been burnt out so much if it was an overcast day. You're right though. At the very least it would benefit from being shot on a tripod. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Yeah OK fair enough - I'll add that to the wishlist for things I should have done --Fir0002 11:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Original looks like the saturation was jacked up by 500%. Both original and edit 1 are too busy and not pleasing to the eye. Noclip 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - I really like this image, but we have to be consistent and I'm certain this would fail if nominated today; also per Trialsanderrors. --YFB ¿ 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)



Korea gyeongbokgung[edit]

Korea gyeongbokgung by Kokiri

I really like this image, but once again it's one where the resolution isn't high enough for a featured picture.

  • Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Under size requirements. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist unless the photographer has a higher resolution version he/she wants to share. This one is tiny. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist: Under size requirements. sd31415 (sign here) 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist This would be a good picture to keep but as stated above it does not fit the required size requirements. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Great shot, bad size. --frothT C 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Regretfully too as the shot is beautiful. — Arjun 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've always been a strong believer in the concept that size alone is not sufficient enough a criterion to delist. howcheng {chat} 08:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretful delist' If it doesn't meet the size requirements, then it must go. It is a pity, as the shot is quite beautiful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

High-cemetry-circle[edit]

Circle of Lebanon, West Cemetery, by MykReeve

Not particularly special, nothing that stands out to me, plus (again, sorry guys) not a good enough resolution.

  • Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Wow, so many under-sized FPs! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. sd31415 (sign here) 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Shall we contact the creater/uploaders of the picture to tell them to make them bigger? How did these even get on the list when they did not fit the requirements in the first place? --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The requirements weren't as strict before. Have a look at the other language Wikipedias; their pictures are often terrible! | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Tons of junk got through before the rules were enforced. This is a prime example. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pitstone-windmill[edit]

Example of a traditional windmill, by MykReeve

Another picture that is pretty good, but is let down by poor resolution. This shouldn't be too hard to replace with a better-quality picture.

  • Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not large enough. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Not bad but not really exceptional either. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per poor resolution. sd31415 (sign here) 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Not clear enough and it does not fit the size requirements. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist If it is not big enough, it must go. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Champs elysees[edit]

Looking east along the Champs-Élysées from the top of the Arc de Triomphe, by MykReeve

Came across this while looking through the featured pictures and thought, even as a thumbnail, it didn't stand out as anything special. But the main problem has to be the resolution; surely a better quality picture can be taken of such a popular location.

  • Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist unless the photographer has a higher resolution version he wants to share. Also, the horizon is tilted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Doesn't meet criteria. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Once again this would be an awesome picture to keep but as all the pictures above it is not clear enough or big enough. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist The picture could be much better. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. sd31415 (sign here) 11:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame Basillica[edit]

Temporarily suspended until copyright status is clarified Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No this isn't a joke delist, although at first glance it may seem so. This image is obviously technically and aesthetically extremely good. But I'm a little unsure as to the validity of the licensing, as Diliff apparently signed a waiver saying it wasn't going to be used for any commercial purpose (see here). Now my understanding of the licenses it is released under, is that commercial use is allowed - a bit of a delimma. I brought it up on Diliff's talk page a little while ago (here - response is here) however not that much as you can see came out of it so I thought I'd better bring it for general discussion. It'd be nice, as Dschwen suggested, to just let sleeping dogs lie but I don't think we can do that on Wikipedia for a Featured Picture. Anyway I hope I don't offend anyway, I just thought it needed to be brought up.

  • Nominate I don't think I'll vote until more input on the legal aspect is given from other voters. --Fir0002 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have emailed them the following:
From: xxx@xxx
05/12/2006 11:23        
To: info@basiliquenddm.org
Subject: Restrictions on photography inside the Basillica


To whom it may concern,

I am an amateur photographer who visited the Basillica in January 2006. I asked to take 
photos with a tripod and was requested to sign a document that I believe prohibited me 
from commercial use of the resulting photos. I had and have no intentions of selling the 
photo, however, I was very pleased with the result of the photo and uploaded it to 
Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. I uploaded it under a licence that states it is
my own personal work but it, or derivatives of it, can be used for any purpose. Therefore,
it has been pointed out that I may have broken the terms of the document that I signed. 
Could you please confirm exactly what restrictions there are on my photograph and whether
you believe it should be removed from Wikipedia?

For the record, the article on the Basillica is here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica

The photograph in question is here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica_Jan_2006.jpg

Wikipedia is commited to ensuring that no laws and will be forced to remove the image if 
it is determined that its use is in breach of the document I signed. That would be a 
shame, but I understand your need to control commercial photography inside the Basillica.

Regards,
David

We'll see what their response is, if anything. The official site is a little amateur. The english link doesn't work at all so I stumbled my way to the contact page with my limited knowledge of French. Contactez-nous apparently! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work Dillif. Agree that the site is pretty ordinary, but look how nice and light the interior photos are! ;-) --Fir0002 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that.. :-) Anyone can make it appear lighter than it actually was. Exposure is an easy thing to manipulate, but that doesn't make it more accurate. Lets face it, its probably ordinary photography to accompany an ordinary site. Hard to tell from the low resolution snippets though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Until we get an answer back regarding the copyright status, I think it would be best to suspend this delisting. I'm worried this might take a while. Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have re-sent the request for information in French as per Booksworm's translation. I did not hear back from them at all in response to my English email. I suspect that I will not hear back in French either, but I will wait and see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just gave them a call. In a nutshell, you are free to take any photos with no licensing restrictions, UNLESS you use a tripod. In that case, you must sign a waiver declaring that the photo will not be used for commercial purposes. So, as much as it pains me, this photo has to be taken off Wikipedia. However, please try your luck at convincing them to allow this one photo to get an unrestricted license. This is too good a photo to delete. 67.71.77.16 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. That was me. ♠ SG →Talk 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If the photographer agreed to release it into the public domain, wouldn't that count as non-commercial? --Dgies 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It would, except that the photographer signed a waiver that essentially prevents them from doing so. Unless specific permission is granted for the release of the image under a free license, it's only usable for non-commercial purposes. GeeJo (t)(c) • 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You might be right but that sounds like a logical contradiction: "Public domain would be non-commercial and therefore OK, but they can't release it as public domain because they must make non-commercial use only" —Dgiest c 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the update SG. Did you ask them why they aren't checking their email? ;-) I assumed that would be the party line. Its rather difficult to get them to allow this photo an unrestricted licence by phone. It would really have to be verifiable in some way. If they won't respond to my email, I don't know how else to get it. I suppose I could just claim I mistakenly admitted using a tripod and really it was shot hand-held. ;-) No wait, I was under duress! I'm kidding by the way. They have my signature on the waiver under lock and key in a vault somewhere no doubt. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Depending on how accessible the subject is to you...could you create another picture of this quality without a tripod? (I guess they figured that really good photographs like this require tripods).--HereToHelp 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If you sponsor Diliff to go to France Canada again I think he will happily shoot another one. :-p But if you have read the image description page, it said This image was taken with a Canon 5D and 85mm f/1.8 lens @ f/13 for depth of field. Each exposure was 15 seconds.. Now I doubt anyone can hand held a camera 15 seconds without motion, so it will be quite impossible to recreate this image without tripod. --antilived T | C | G 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Not one of this quality, anyway...it's a shame. Not only would we have to delist it, but delete it. I really hate copyright.--HereToHelp 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's time that we removed this image from wikipedia. We've certainly established that it's in copyright violation and it seems that we're waiting on approval to use it. Remove now, possibly approve and restore later, that's the way copyright works --frothT C 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to get it straight, it is absolutely not a copyright violation! The copyright for the image is with the uploader. It is just(?) a licensing problem. Commons does not permit non-commercial licenses. The picture could be uploaded directly to en.WP, but still would have to be delisted from FP. --Dschwen 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The English Wikipedia does not permit the use of non-commercial-only image licesing either (see [3]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Too bad, its a great image. Quickly have to save a copy on my PC... --Dschwen 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it from most of the pages it's on. The rest are just old archives where a redlink won't really hurt. Anyone who's a commons admin can now delete the image itself. Raven4x4x 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, it has been done. Very unfortunate as it was a spectacular image --Fir0002 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • question they have just the restriction for tripods? then can't you create something list a quatropod, and use it instead? :) AzaToth 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted MER-C 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BDSM collar back[edit]

Reason
I'm just not sure that if this image were nominated today, it'd make it through the FPC process and gain the star. Its resolution is substandard and its depth of field seems a bit too shallow (the right and top edges of the collar itself are blurry, to say nothing of the rest of the image). It might just be an error introduced by the scan. It works OK as an illustration of the subject, but I'm not sure it's of feature quality. Given the wide availability of the object depicted, it just seems to me that we could do better. GeeJo (t)(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Nominator
GeeJo (t)(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. It may be worthwhile extending the deadline slightly on this image to give time for feedback on a new scan, if one is forthcoming. GeeJo (t)(c) • 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • DelistGeeJo (t)(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — it's iconic, and the important parts are in focus. ('Course, I'm partial.) grendel|khan 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I don't suppose you happen to have a higher-resolution version available for upload? That'd at least rectify one of the problems. GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it was scanned from a print; I think I may still have the print around, but I'd need to dig it up. I'm on vacation until January 2 or so; if I can find it, it'll be on the last day of voting. I suppose I can always resubmit it. grendel|khan 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist — is below the required size (1000px), it's rather blurry. AzaToth 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above. sd31415 (sign here) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per all above. --¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist. Also boring pic. --frothT C 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist size requirements, and the important parts are not really in focus. They're just in better focus than the other parts. --Bridgecross 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delist, tight focus is artsy but not clearly illustrative of the subject. I've had qualms about this one for a while but never got around to listing it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist does not meet the FP standards. For it is too small and way to blurry. — Arjun 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Per all above. Its too blurry. Daniel10 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Until better picture suitable replacement is found <---- That really says it all. Although I agree that this picture is technically flawed, the picture does have a good encyclopedic value. I propose that we keep it until a suitable replacement can be found (which shouldn't be too hard, actually). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not deleting it. The picture will go on contributing whatever encyclopedic value it can just as it always has. We're just recognizing as you have that it's flawed and shouldn't be presented as our best work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist boring and definitely not one of WP's finest photos. Wikipediarules2221 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


City Hall, London[edit]

City hall london.jpg
Reason
Does not meet size requirements - It's only 450 x 600. Also, there are blown out highlights and the subject is cut off.
Nominator
Mahahahaneapneap
  • DelistMahahahaneapneap 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist definitely way too small -Wutschwlllm 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Pity it doesn't meet the requirements.... it is a beautiful shot of a beautiful building. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - yup, good call. Was featured when the requirements were a lot less strict. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist: Under size requirements. sd31415 (sign here) 11:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Sad to see too since the image is very nice. — Arjun 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist Well I guess we are on patrol for small pictures!! Looks like they had bad weather that night (or at least it was a little foggy).--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Because the author was not informed, the only reason is the size, otherwise a very good photo. I though we were over this, as there was another nomination, based only on size that failed. Until we don't get a response from the creator, we don't have to remove this image from FP statue. --Arad 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that as a matter of courtesy it would be nice if the nominator/creator were warned however most nominations go through delisting without notifying the person so it's not really needed though it would be nice. Cat-five - talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To nominator: Please inform the author of the nomination and ask him, if possible, to provide a higher resolution.
  • Delist on size and quality grounds, the size is way too low and the blown out lighting are an issue though I can live with the cutoff of part of the building. Cat-five - talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted - I asked the photographer, ChrisO, for a higher res version on the 4th of December but he hasn't replied yet. If he can provide a larger image it can always be nominated again. Raven4x4x 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Glass ball[edit]

Glass can be made transparent and flat, or into other shapes and colors as shown in this sphere from the Verrerie of Brehat in Brittany.
Reason
Not Wikipedia's best work. The image is of a low resolution (422x510 px) and has bad compression artifacts.
Nominator
KFP (talk | contribs)
  • DelistKFP (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Should be possible to replace with a better image of decorative glass. —Dgiest c 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist this in now way meets the criterion for FP. — Arjun 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist --frothT C 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, too small to be a featured picture, and doesn't have a notable feature to make the small size acceptable. --RandomOrca2 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. sd31415 (sign here) 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Small picture patrol!!--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Small size should not be the sole reason for delisting a picture. NauticaShades 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Small size alone is more than enough to keep a candidate from reaching FP so why shouldn't it delist one? --frothT C 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Because of the asymmetry in promoting vs delisting images - not meeting all current criteria is not sufficient for a delist. At least that's how I've interpreted the delist discussions for a while now. Debivort 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Cent[edit]

the penny that's January 2nd's POTD
2005 uncirculated edition (from the same source) for comparison.
detail, blue indicates areas that are absolute black - clear evidence of filling with the paint bucket tool in Photoshop (not to mention some tolerable JPG compression squares). The same effect is visible on the other side with the copper color area
Reason
There was wide opposition to another coin because it featured the same cameo effect. I just wanted to revisit the issue to try to get more discussion on this.
Nominator
frothT C
  • DelistfrothT C 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Emphatic delist - the photoshopping of this example is particularly blatant, and the "light side" of the background is almost white - even the shiniest pennies don't really look like that. Debivort 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Modern U.S. proof coins are often treated with chemicals to make certain parts of the design take on a frosted appearance, and the fields taking on a mirror finish. Several other methods have been used in the past to achieve this effect, including sand blasting the dies, and matte proofs. Also see cameo. You're simply stating that it was photoshopped as if that's without question a bad thing, however the whole purpose of this nom was to establish whether in fact it is a bad thing. --frothT C 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what the first part of your comment has to do with mine. I am not objecting to the "frosted" parts - I'm objecting to the background that has been simply filled using the bucket tool in photoshop. Blatant photoshopping of an image like this is bad because it makes the coin look shinier than it is in real life. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You're not very familiar with coins, are you? Search google images for words like deep OR ultra cameo proof. Simply stating that something is photoshopped doesn't make it true. It may be a drawing, though, but the effect that is shown is very real. Of course pennies in circulation will not exhibit this effect very well, because they are not the best of the best and/or have not had special chemical treatment. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-02 13:58Z
      • I may not be "very familiar with coins" but I am utterly familiar with the conversations we've had about these cameo images on the FPC pages before. Go ahead and look at your google image hits from deep cameo or whatever - in none of them will you see the even half light/half dark field with the cute little gradient separating the halves. This is fake - it is done habitually by the US Mint for their publicity shots. Look at the inset. The blue parts are absolute black - this pattern only results from filling with the paint bucket in Photoshop, and therefore reflects (har har) a decrease in the encyclopedicity of the image because it makes it look much shinier than if it had simply been photographed and left unmanipulated. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As an added note to the above two comments, proof coins frequently look like this, in real life and in coinage publications. The appearance of this particular penny is not rare and many coins issued proof look like this when photographed. Proof coins are struck multiple times to create deep relief between the features and the field of the coin, after they're struck they're thoroughly polished to create the shine exhibited. It doesn't really matter to me if the coin is delisted as a featured image, but opposers should consider the overall quality of the image rather than support delisting just because it "looks fake" Stratosphere (U T) 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've looked through the google image hits now, and in previous nominations. Please, if there are undoctored photos that have this half light/half dark field, show me a link! Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, just look at the edges of the 2002. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist No longer up to snuff. Comment I'm trying to look ahead to future PotD's, but this slipped through the cracks. Again, this link:[[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{#time:F j, Y|+7 days}}]] gives you the PotD seven days in advance. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I was actually considering nominating this image for delist. Per all above. — Arjun 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist, fake lighting that doesn't make sense. Noclip 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I've changed my lackadaisical "delist" to a comment for the objections offered above, but I stand by my call for the following reasons: 1. I am under the impression that this image was heavily photoshopped, which alone is a reason for delisting. Even unphotoshopped images that "look photoshopped" should not be featured. 2. In particular, the blurriness of the black-white transitions smack of manual blurring. 3. Not trusting my first instincts I went to the source of the image and downloaded both proof and uncirculated of the 2006 Benjamin Franklin "Founding Father" Silver Dollar and superimposed them in Photoshop (set the top image to 50% opacity and invert it). The rims of the coins are digitally identical and with some shifting and rotating I can find other elements that are digitally identical. So I conclude that both versions are digitally created from elements of the same original photgraph. 4. While it is possible that the coin was prepared mechanically and chemically to create the photo, it's questionable that this is still done today when a similar effect can be created in 30 minutes on a computer. And finally 5. Images of this type are – literally – a dime a dozen and a penny to the pound, so I don't think that even if it is an unphotoshopped original it can be considered among the best. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm putting up that other penny for FP :) --frothT C 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist with Severe Prejudice - In addition, I will put up the following image, which also was given FP status, also be immediately put up for immediate delisting procedures. It's the same with the other coins: photoshopped coins that don't show any natural minting processes.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Not a regular penny but a collecters one. We an excellent picture of a penny that is in the money circulation.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep There's no reason a new penny in the right light couldn't look as good as this. A photographer with talent will USE lighting to make something look better. The whole industry of product photography is based on making some toy or product look wonderful so that you will buy it. Most models and movie stars have the same done with publicity shots. -- Mactographer 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • United States penny, obverse, 2002.pngUnited States penny, obverse, 2002.png My Two Cents:--P.S. Photoshop is here to stay. It's gonna be used. It's a reality we all have to live with every day. We ain't going back to using buggy whips and horses. Same for the old photo methods.Mactographer 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Please. Mines better:
1943 copper cent.jpg This user likes to give his or her two cents.

--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ha. Very nice. Tho I like to make userbox pages so I don't have to keep all that wiki code handy. Mactographer 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Fir; delisting these simply because of the cameo effect doesn't seem necessary. I will agree that an identical image without the cameo effect is more realistic, and therefore better, but I don't see why all these otherwise good images have to be delisted. --Tewy 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Cameo is not the problem per se, it's the manipulation done by the US mint on all these images. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delisting paves the way for FPing a different penny without the cameo effect. Since Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln Penny 2 is the exact same image but without the cameo effect I don't understand why you wouldnt vote Delist on this one and Support on the other --frothT C 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That one doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well then neither does this one.. they're the exact same image without the cameo --frothT C 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • One cannot promote an image to featured status if it doesn't meet size requirements. But failing to meet current size requirements is not necessarily a reason to delist every featured picture that's below the limit. As I said below, if a nearly identical or better image of the coin without the cameo is promoted, I will vote delist on the current featured cameo coin. The current nomination for the non-cameo penny does not have a chance at becoming featured, so it will not replace this image, and I therefore see no reason to delist this otherwise exceptional image at this time. --Tewy 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Good point, however if FPs don't meet the current requirements they should be delisted --frothT C 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • My policy on these is that I support keeping the current FPs, unless a non-cameo version is promoted as a replacement. --Tewy 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the proof coin shows the motive best due to its clarity. It is free of any individual coin features, it is an archetype. That actually helps enc. If you want to show a real coin, use one from circulation, that has its merits too. --Dschwen 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin image are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal per the issue raised here?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Those are two different cases. As for the lincon cent, I had the discussion with User:trialsanderrors here, and I think (as he didn't object anymore (maybe I just wore him down :-) )) that this particulat coin is in the PD. --Dschwen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess I should have responded there. As of now all indicators are that the Lincoln cent is PD. ~ trialsanderrors 08:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per trialsanderrors and others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackerel sky over Edmonton, Alberta[edit]

Altocumulus mackerel sky
Reason
I really don't see anything special in this picture. Just look at the graininess. This completely destroys the image for me. And these sort of clouds aren't that rare either.
Nominator
Wutschwlllm
  • DelistWutschwlllm 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - per above. Also poor focus on the buildings. This image has been nominated for delisting before, but still, standards change - Jack (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - The original delist nomination was largely for failing size standards, at which time the image was updated with this larger version. While I think this image has decent encyclopedic value in articles on cloud formations, the overall poor focus ruins it. Mackerel clouds are supposed to show sharper boundaries so they need to be in focus. —Dgiest c 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist regretfully as it is a beautiful image. But the blurriness and just an overall bad image. — Arjun 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist yet another undeserving FP --frothT C 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist The focus should be on the city and not on the clouds. Even if the focus was on the clouds they don't seem very attractive. Why1991 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Sochi edited[edit]

Sochi edited (featured picture)
Reason
A very beautiful image but in no way meets the size requirements, which is a very vital requirement when promoting images. And the detail that can be seen isn't very good. Looks grainy. — Arjun 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominator
Arjun
  • DelistArjun 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per size. It's pretty much required that vistas fit the size requirement, no exceptions here --frothT C 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a picture from the Prokudin-Gorskii collection, so there might be a larger tiff file available. Maybe I'll do some sifting later. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Here we go: Zakat solntsa v Gagrakh ~ trialsanderrors 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Follow-up: I did the cropping and rotating of the tiff version but it needs some serious manual clean-up, so I would like to hear whether size is the only problem here or whether it might be delisted on other grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Trialsanderrors:Yeah probably, for some reason I think the image is a little blurry but we shall see. — Arjun 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep under the condition that it be made bigger otherwise Delist. Why1991 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist due to size, also seems somewhat blurry and out-of-focus. If a larger version will be uploaded I suggest creating a new nomination, but I doubt it will pass. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per size. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 13:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The blurriness, especially in the ocean, is a symptom of the way the photograph is made. Read the Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii article and see Image talk:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg for more information. howcheng {chat} 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As is mentioned at the original nomination, the image was made in 1915 so the historical value outweighs the size requirement in my opinion. Spebudmak 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Size is not a feature of the original image, but of the edited copy here. There is a much larger copy available at the LoC website (see link above) that requires editing. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, the image should then be replaced with a higher resolution version. But there is no reason to delist this one while we are waiting. Spebudmak 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, this is an historical photograph, so why do any manual editing to the archival, source version, other than the rotation? The edges of the version at the link above are interesting to see, given the color process that was used. We promoted the new scan of Duhauron1877.jpg in the same way.Spebudmak 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delist keep - made in 1915. Debivort 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) since it seems to illustrate Sochi rather than the photographic technique, the fact that it was taken in 1915 doesn't matter. Debivort 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist because of size. I doubt it can be made much better from the originals. Also there is not much historical value since the place looks probably the same now as it looked back in 1915, and we have better images from Prokudin-Gorskii. --Bernard 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to say I'm pretty disappointed at how poor the quality of voting on FPC has become. I do hope the delisters have taken the time to find out that this is one of the earliest colour photographs ever taken (alternatively, this picture is really bad quality and ought to be delisted too). I should also point out that some blurring/colour registration problems are a necessary side effect of Prokudin-Gorskii's technique. As trialsanderrors points out, a larger size scan is available - I looked at tackling it myself a couple of years ago (after all I did find and clean up the featured pictures for Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange and Lewis Hine). In this case I doubt that you would end up with anything much better than we have got at the moment. It would probably be wiser to spend the time cleaning up one of Prokudin-Gorskii's other photographs (check the Commons link - there are plenty), or properly determining which of his images is actually the earliest available. -- Solipsist 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Prokudin-Gorskii, while certainly a pioneer, was hardly among the first to take color photographs. There is also a good handful of images that were professionally restored by the Library of Congress, so if we want to depict P-G images in an "idealized" state we should take those. This picture here I would describe as "approximated original" state, in that it probably comes close to showing how the image was seen by contemporaries. The version I created would be a representation in the "current" state, including all damages that occurred over time. There are good reasons to feature one of each type, and I'm inclined to say that this would be a good representation for current state. The restoration, while pretty well done, doesn't match the efforts of the LoC. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, he wasn't the first, but he was pretty much the first to do colour photography to a standard that you would say "that's a realistic picture". With respect to the professionally restored versions, it is interesting that they concentrate on the Alim Khan photo. This would be my first choice to represent P-G, its long been a featured picture on Commons and largely the image that made me decide it wasn't worth devoting much effort to trying to improve the quality of this one. Mind you, it look like there is an effort underway on Commons to delete all P-G photos for copyright reasons - which is a good example of why it would be foolish to devote much effort to improving or changing any of these photos. -- Solipsist 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Certainly a pioneering effort, but I doubt that his first image is more encyclopedically notable than his best image. Thanks for the notifier about the P-G deletion discussion. I posted my comment there. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist for now, without prejudice against renomination. Size is a problem, restoration quality is a minor problem (meaning it's a careful but not featured quality restoration), subject matter is a problem. All of those problems can be overcome with some effort, and I believe the image can be FP quality encyclopedic for the nuanced color gradation. Also, the image should be put into context so that readers who click through recognize its historic value. The discussion above is indicative that in its current state the message doesn't come across, and it seems like nobody is willing to put the effort into bringing this image up to speed. Maybe if I get a chance I'll do it later. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. The size is ok but this picture doesn't really tell me very much about the city of Sochi, only that it is located close to some large body of water. I would vote to keep this as a featured picture if it were used in an article related to the history of photography. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. It may be somewhat historic but there are better historic photos by the very same photographer. It doesn't illustrate any article particularly well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Geisha[edit]

Full height photograph of women dressed as maiko (geisha apprentices), Kyoto, Japan. They are wearing traditional kimono and geta.
Reason
Too small and nothing special.
Nominator
Wutschwlllm
  • DelistWutschwlllm 14:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I personally dislike this image as first of it is too small and secondly they aren't real geisha, which take encyclopedic value away from the image. — Arjun 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Below size requirement. Witty lama 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Size should not be the only reason for delisting a picture. NauticaShades 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist another crappy pic, nowhere near FP material --frothT C 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I must agree with you but we don't need to be using improper language. :-) Why1991 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Seriously froth, the picture is not "crappy" - it just may not be FP material. Please remember to be civil. Debivort 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Eh sorry --frothT C 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Fails WP:WIAFP criteria 2, 3 (in my opinion), and 5 (considering the many other images on each page, it is not particularly important to either Kimono nor Geisha in a way the other included images are not). -- Kicking222 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per all above. Why1991 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. Debivort 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think it's still encyclopedic, showing what maiko (apprentice geisha) look like, but this is too much of a snapshot. howcheng {chat} 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - All said. --Arad 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A good example of Geisha.Bewareofdog 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Chicago skyline at sunset[edit]

Chicago Skyline at Sunset.png
Reason
Superseded by Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg. Note this was nominated once for delisting: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline delist.
Nominator
howcheng {chat}
  • Delisthowcheng {chat} 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. A good picture, but has been superseded and is no longer used in an article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. I forgot all about delisting this, after the other was promoted. --Tewy 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I actually replaced this photo in every article it appeared in, with the new one. But then I felt it was not seemly to nominate it for removal myself. There is nothing wrong with having 2 FPs of the same subject (like hovery-flies or whatever they are) but the old one just doesn't meet our current standards. --Bridgecross 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the quality of the other picture is far better, IMO this one has a better composition, specially the sky. --Arad 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We can perfectly put this back into, say, the Illinois article. No reason to have the same panorama in every Chicago-related article. The other one might win on technical merit, but this one wins on artistic impression. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree we can use different skyline photos for various articles, and this is a nice photo. But if this were newly nominated today, folks would jump all over the out-of-focus buildings and dark lighting and other problems. --Bridgecross 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I'm certainly exhibiting status quo bias here. Also see the Long Beach image above. This one is leaps and bounds better than that one. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • For one reason, this is a PNG image, not a JPG and thus does not have any compression artifacts by definition. howcheng {chat} 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Not sure if that's not a jpg converted into a png. But you seem to consider compression artifacts a positive feature, judging from your responses. ~ trialsanderrors 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Not the case at all, but I think too much focus has been placed on JPG artifacts when they only noticeable at full size and then only at the edges of structures. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. beautiful image. 68.61.233.160 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is, but it's not in any articles anymore, which is a one of the requirements for being a featured picture. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. If there is something better, it isn't "wikipedia's best work". say1988 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think using alternate images on various pages is a great idea. Having several available shots for users to access on different pages adds meaningful content. However, this is a list for Featured Pictures and if images are grainy or if there are other better images available they should be used (e.g. several different pictures of the Lincoln penny)Buphoff 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Peacock[edit]

Indian Blue Peacock
Reason
I'm requesting to delist this image as a featured pictures mostly due to size and depth of field issues. It also seems somewhat grainy and blurred. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominator
Michaelas10 (Talk)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Brisbane by night[edit]

Brisbane city by night, looking north along the Brisbane River towards the CBD.
Reason
Not a bad picture but not exceptional either for such an often-photographed subject. I think we can do better.
Nominator
KFP (talk | contribs)
  • DelistKFP (talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Doesn't meet size requirements Joe D 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, not to mention the overexposure blowing the highlights. -Fcb981 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Nice pic, but a tad too small. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Too small and not particularly pleasing to my eye. -Wutschwlllm 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist What is that thing behind the buildings.Bewareofdog 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Tilted, too small, artifacts. —Dgiest c 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, so this one is worse than this one how? ~ trialsanderrors 09:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying this is much worse than that one, but compare this image with this or some other images of the same subject at Flickr (example search). I think featured pictures should be exceptional in some way. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact it's not really different and I voted for delisting on the one you mentioned too and I can't understand why anyone would want to keep it, but that's democracy (sometimes it sucks, but hey...). -Wutschwlllm 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • nope --frothT 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, in fact, this is very close to democracy......and the "consensus" is executed a bit arbitrarily too (but that's just my opinion). -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S.: The other one was kept because it "fits size requirements", which seems a bit arbitrary to me, especially since it looks like a panorama. -Wutschwlllm 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Tells you something about the arbitrariness of size requirements. They're both ~50,000 pixels. Oh, and Delist. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
        • That one wasn't about size. The oldest voters on FPC voted to keep it because it had a superior composition and atmosphere and the best of it's subject we have. --Arad 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Euro symbol[edit]

PNG version for delisting
SVG version for replacement
Reason
Replacement nomination for SVG version: Image:Euro Construction.svg. I'd just swap it out myself, but it isn't exactly the same, so I thought it better to bring it to the community.
Nominator
howcheng {chat}
  • Replacehowcheng {chat} 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace PNG with SVG. A no-brainer, really... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace Great choice. ~ Arjun 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace - easier to read in the thumb. Only, can I suggest a few changes? Could the commas be changed to fullstops, could you reinstate the small embedded explainations, and could you please show the angle of the lines J, H and E? Jack · talk · 19:46, Tuesday, 6 February 2007
    • I didn't make it myself. Apparently, the commas are being used because it's the international system used in Europe (according to the creator, Commons:User:F l a n k e r). The text that was removed is now in the image description page. howcheng {chat} 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I'll stick with my vote, suggestion-free - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
  • Replace but don't delete... that's what the "superceded" tag is for --frothT 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely replace PNG with SVG. S.D. ¿п? § 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace I say that you should be bold and replace it yourself. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose replace unless it is changed back to American/UK/AU decimals (this is an English encyclopedia). I also think some of the explanations were nice in the PNG and the proportions of letter size to the symbol... gren グレン 00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The file is from Wikimedia Commons, meaning it is used across all language versions. The image has no distinguishing features that make it specific to the English language, only those that use the Latin alphabet, as most European countries do - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Replaced. Raven4x4x 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


USB flash drive[edit]

This photograph shows both sides of the printed circuit board inside a typical USB flash drive (circa 2004), in this case an inexpensive 64 Mbyte USB2.0 device.
Edit 1 - image cropped, border colour changed, bigger labels
Reason
I feel this is an informative image, but unattractive, and possibly outdated. Since everyone has at least one USB flash drive nowadays, I'm sure the image would be of no trouble to take again with much better conditions. With the border removed, the images are each - and combined - way less than 1000px. My main reasons for delisting are the ugly border and low resolution, and the possiblity that a (now obsolete) 64 Mbyte drive has slightly different internals to the modern standards.
Nominator
Jack
  • DelistJack · talk · 19:39, Wednesday, 7 February 2007
  • keep pending replacement, the resolution is sufficient, I can make out all the traces and the components. Resolution is a detail issue, but I'm not missing any details on this. The border should be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Created edit 1, which I believe is superior, but still far short of what I wanted. We need to photo to be retaken. The edit now takes it under the size requirements, as I said it would - Jack · talk · 16:55, Thursday, 8 February 2007
      • Woah, just realised mine has serious artifacts. Not sure why, but this means the original is actually way better than mine Jack · talk · 16:59, Thursday, 8 February 2007
  • Delist All The background fusing of the edit looks bad and there are the artifacts. Mainly, for a subject such as this we really need the picture to be outstanding to make FP. This one is simpily unprofesional, tilted, and has a ugly (off pinkish white) background -Fcb981 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, purely because they look nothing like that anymore and we need a more accurate picture --frothT 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - froth, that's actually not true - I have two (different) 3-month-old 1GB flash drives which are essentially identical internally to the one illustrated. --YFB ¿ 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak neutral Your points: 1) background/border: agree 2) resolution: mostly disagree (could be better but on a simple image like this you don't lose too much...) 3) Obsolete?: disagree, technologically it may be less useful but it is still just as representative as a newer one. gren グレン 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delist - It's encylopaedic and doesn't strike me as horribly bad, but it wouldn't be difficult to get a much better shot. I might take one myself if I can dig out my defunct 128MB version. --YFB ¿ 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Sun Halo[edit]

Edited to remove frame and dust.
Reason
It's a nice photo, but I feel this picture doesn't meet the standards of today's featured pictures. It was promoted to FP in 2004, but probably would not make FP if nominated today.
Nominator
mw
  • Delistmw 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - It's not terrible technically. It was shot at the South Pole, which earns it points for rarity of the shot, but the phenomenon it illustrates, light halos, seems to be fairly ubiquitous. I wish it illustrated something having to do with the south pole. Debivort 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed some of the dust and the black bar on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where are all the comments? This is supposed to close tomorrow, and we're not going to be able to make a decision unless we have some more input. Raven4x4x 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the decision would be to keep, right? The current state is preserved unless a consensus is reached to change it, just as a FPC isn't promoted unless it gets at least 4 votes. Debivort 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with edited version. I agree with Debivort in that it's too bad it doesn't illustrate something South Pole-related, but it does show a halo pretty well and artistically, the angle works well for this shot. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace Per Howcheng --Fir0002 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace Btw, the sign on the bottom left says "Welcome to the South Pole", so there. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with edited version Raven4x4x 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Natto[edit]

Natto
Reason
Unless I'm missing something, this picture is way too small. ShadowHalo 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nominator
ShadowHalo
  • DelistShadowHalo 12:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist How was that promoted n the first place?--HereToHelp 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Where's the original nom? Maybe that will tell us something. Jaredtalk  14:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is is. I'm guessing October 2004 was before we had resolution requirements?--HereToHelp 14:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Delist. Thanks. That's enough for me to vote. Jaredtalk  16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the image is far too small, and for that I support de-listing the image--HadzTalk 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, for now. See the original nom again - Fir's comment at the time indicates that there might have been a larger image previously, but I can't find any history... tiZom(2¢) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Beautiful, but tiny. Enuja 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist How was this promoted? 8thstar 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very encyclopedic, no technical flaws, really. Just because it doesn't meet our current size guideline doesn't mean it should be delisted. The FP Criteria says "Images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported...", it doesn't say they must be 1000 pixels in either dimension. Joe D 06:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist If the image is not reproducable then the 1000pixels minimum can be ignored, but in this is no such case. We've been very strict on the 1000 pixel minimum for more important subjects, why relax the requirement for this.
  • Strong delist, I really like this photo, but it's something that is completely replicable so I don't think we can really justify keeping such a low resolution version (unlike with the buffaloes). gren グレン 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. An everyday image that should not be excused from a reasonable size requirement. Pstuart84 Talk 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist --Arad 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Wasp Stinger[edit]

a closeup of a wasp's sting - with venom
Reason
Not very clear and way small! (564x500)
Nominator
Witty lama
  • DelistWitty lama 03:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - composition, sharpness and noise aren't great; there's not much in the way of context (where does this fit into the wasp? how big is it? what sort of wasp? etc.) and the size is too low compared to the best of our insect photos. --YFB ¿ 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per YFB. 8thstar 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, can be replicated and made better. gren グレン 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delist is it actually easy to replicate this? I don't know how hard it is to catch a wasp and get it to drip out venom. that said, the image quality is probably too low for FP. Debivort 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Emperor Penguins[edit]

Mature Emperor penguins. Unknown location
Reason
Below image size requirements (only 640x480), subjects cut off.
Nominator
Witty lama
  • DelistWitty lama 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - size, lack of contrast, composition. --YFB ¿ 03:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Info. Original nomination here and previous delist attempt here. Pstuart84 Talk 08:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Poor quality (low resolution and compression artifacts). Not one of Wikipedia's best images in my opinion. I think this is actually the third time this picture has been nominated for delisting (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Emperor penguins.jpg delist in addition to Pstuart84's link above). --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Compare it with other FPs. 8thstar 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Subject cut off. Ishaana 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I did not know about these previous failed attempts to delist! I'm very surprised to see it has managed to stay for this long, but nevertheless, there is obviously support for the pic. We had best make sure then that this nom is given its full run so as to not appear to have "rushed it through". Witty lama 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist -- Moondigger 15:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is the third time this image has been nominated for delist. Looks like people opinion had changed at last. --Arad 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Not because I think it's poor quality, but because it's not the BEST Wikipedia can offer. --Arad 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low resolution, blown highlights on penguins' bodies, unknown location. Pstuart84 Talk 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Wolf spider attack position[edit]

A wolf spider defending her egg sac.
Reason
Fails resolution "guideline", out of focus or blurry in places (motion?), flash reflection off eyes. Sorry, Fir, but you've had better pics (I still love the focus bracket one). --HereToHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Nominator
HereToHelp
  • DelistHereToHelp 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. 8thstar 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist very muddy for some reason. -Fcb981 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Technical flaws are trivial, and are trumped by composition and interesting subject matter. --Bagginz 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I hate to say I cant tell if this is a hole in the ground a notch in a vertical clif or the roof of a cave. -Fcb981 21:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a hole in the ground because of the position of the egg sac (I don't think mommy is holding it up with a her rear against gravity). And technical flaws are only trivial if the subject is irreplaceable; there are more wolf spiders out there.--HereToHelp 23:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations. --YFB ¿ 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Bagginz still has a good point. Not every image is going to be used at high resolution so why delist images solely on that ground? It's still encyclopedic, interesting and composed. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Eeeeeeeeyup, and don't feel you have to whisper it. I suppose as a long time reader of this page, I jump in to vote Keep because I get mildly annoyed with technical nitpicking on worthy and deservedly recognized contributions.

Still, since we're in the mood to check up on what people have been up to, I have a question for HereToHelp. Given that the creator of the photo in question, Fir0002, is easily one the most respected and honored contributors to this forum, don't you think that he deserves the courtesy, and you the obligation, of your mention on his talk page that you've nominated his picture for delisting? --Bagginz 06:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember someone saying something about nitpicking -Fcb981 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the the talk page note (no, I don't dispute the quality of Fir's contributions), I suspected that he would browse the page enough to find this (or does he browse this section as often?). If you like, seeing as he has not commented here, and I can still post a note.--HereToHelp 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delist - Poor image quality (soft, artifacts), low resolution, harsh lighting, plenty of better images. --YFB ¿ 03:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know it's impossible to shut off the sun, so the lighting isn't his fault. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Might want to read up on this then ;-). --Dschwen 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, sorry fir but the nom is right. Witty Lama 11:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Baltimore Washington Monument[edit]

Converted.png
Reason
Featured nearly 2 years ago and more than likely wouldn't pass now. It's not compelling, poor image quality, not particluarly large and odd composition (given that the fountain is not part of the monument).
Nominator
Witty lama
  • DelistWitty lama 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep more on principle than anything else that by that logic pretty much every nomination over x days months or years old should be delisted. Cat-five - talk 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Because nobody has given a satisfactory reason why this should be delisted and thus it should stay. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Opposing on principle because you disagree with Witty lama's multiple delist nominations is WP:POINT - please consider the image against today's WP:FP? criteria. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I did Not list it here because it was featured a long time ago. I listed it here, along with the others, becasue it would not, IMHO, stand up to the FPnomination process as it currently stands. All the FPs that I've listed here have achieved "consensus delist" so far, I'm not "out to get" old FPs. Witty Lama 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your entirely right it is WP:POINT so I'll change my reasoning given. Cat-five - talk 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, it still sounds like WP:POINT except you're using a more plausible reason as a front for your previously expressed beliefs. I think Witty lama did provide a perfectly reasonable reason for delisting though. Not that it should be reason alone to delist but the image is also poorly named and is saved with an inappropriate format for a photo. It just compounds the already mentioned issues to me. Nothing about it shouts FP so why should it remain FP? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delist - Strange composition, tilt, lack of detail, noise, poor lighting, easily replaceable with a better image. --YFB ¿ 03:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. As per comments above. Poor overall quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, I hope this reason will be good enough for Cat-five. It's an object still standing so this image doesn't represent any scarcity. The quality is decent but if you look at current nominations you will see that this is very blurred, showing little detail compared to what better cameras can do. gren グレン 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleist per Witty Diliff. --Dschwen 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Image meets all FP criteria and adds considerably to article. As per Yummi's concerns, see discussion from when picture was originally selected. The tilt is right on at 90 degrees the lighting was perfect, and you can't get much more detail of this monument. --ScottyBoy900Q 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the illusion of tilt is caused by the slightly off-centre composition combined with the upward viewing angle; the base of the monument is clearly tilted and I think the column just happens to line up due to the perspective effect of having the camera slightly off-centre. The apparent tilt was only one of the many reasons why this picture is nowhere near the best of Wikipedia's images. The lighting is dull (the original image was underexposed on an apparently dull day), there's severe over-use of post-processing which has brought out 'haloed' edges, there's motion blur on the trees, there's loads of colour noise (exacerbated by the processing) and, seen alongside many of our other architectural FPs (particularly those by Diliff) the assertion that you "can't get much more detail of this monument" is... well, I'll be polite and say "highly dubious". You can't even see the inscription on the base. --YFB ¿ 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted --YFB ¿ 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Frogspawn[edit]

a closeup of Frogspawn - type unknown
Reason
Too small for a replicable subject, gives no sense of scale, uncompelling.
Nominator
Witty Lama
  • DelistWitty Lama 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Debivort 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course it doesn't give a sense of scale. That's not the point of a closeup. I'm not going to respond to the "too small" comment in detail so I can force myself to remain civil. Let's just it's really ticking me off. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, can you elaborate? This is a good faith nomination and an uncontroversial one IMO. I'm surprised to see that someone would be "ticked off" by this. If you believe this should remain an FP please say so. Witty Lama 10:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --YFB ¿ 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the more unusual and weirdly compelling FPs. This time, size doesn't matter, but I do wish those things would stop looking at me. --Bagginz 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Virtually all of User:Bagginz's contributions consist of voting Keep in delist nominations.--Bagginz 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Bagginz: why does size really matter that much? This is simply an interesting image. I think that unless you want to volunteer to go and take a better, higher resolution copy you should keep this one. --Vaelta 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason size is important is that Wikipedia isn't intended only for online use. Our images should be of a high enough resolution to make decent copies in a printed version of the encyclopaedia - even assuming a print resolution of 200dpi, which is a bit on the low side (usually the standard is 300dpi), you'd be lucky to turn this into a 3"x3" print. Since it's an easily-replaceable image, it is fair to expect high resolution (at least the minimum 1000px). Also, I should point out that past discussions have led to a consensus that go take a better one is not a valid reason for a Support or Keep vote. --YFB ¿ 18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. J Are you green? 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's always good to ask the original uploader if they have a larger version, rather than [4]. Question: Has any effort been made to replace this image with a Free one from flickr et al.? Samsara (talk  contribs) 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted --YFB ¿ 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Baseball pitching motion[edit]

Baseball pitching motion 2004.jpg
Reason
The image has been heavily doctored by Photoshopping. Not only does it not feature the player it's supposed to feature, it's flipped left-right from its correct orientation. The pitcher shown is a left-handed pitcher, not a right-handed one. The jersey numbers have been Photoshopped to complete the deception. These are not the qualities I expect from a featured photo.
Nominator
FCYTravis
  • DelistFCYTravis 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist also too small, and artifacty. Debivort 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. Amphy 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. 8thstar 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist --Arad 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Bryce Amphitheater[edit]

Bryce Amphitheater from Bryce Point
Reason
Low resolution, blown out sky. We've got larger and higher resolution images of much better quality. (see Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg and Image:USA bryce canyon pano UT.jpg for examples of better quality images.) - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Nominator
Mgm|(talk)
  • DelistMgm|(talk) 11:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't much care since I have a few newer, higher res photos I've been meaning to stitch together of the same scene. However, I do have a higher res version of this image that I could upload if wanted. --mav 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please upload the higher res image. - Bevo 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Even better, please stitch your newer photos and upload them! --YFB ¿ 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Wazzup with it getting featured status in the first place? Definitely not one of the finest on the Wiki. Chickitychina`1`1 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low resolution, dull lighting, not used in an article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Orphaned from main space. Contrast is too harsh. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Catedral de Segovia[edit]

Catedral de Segovia.jpg
Reason
Too small (800x600).
Nominator
Noclip
  • DelistNoclip 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Until a larger version. --Arad 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small, minor artifacts. Amphy 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Deslist. per nom. Witty Lama 22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand why a good (though small) picture such as this receiving no complaints for its nom of "too small" whereas comments on recent nominations and this debate seem to show that people want to give the benifit of the doubt to smaller existing FPs. I just don't understand what rules we're playing by are anymore.... Witty Lama 22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Not knowing exactly which other noms you have in mind, it could just reflect who has voted and who hasn't yet... Some people care a lot about size as a sufficient reason to delist, some don't? Debivort 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There's not gonna be a larger version if no one informs the photographer of the nomination. I've contacted the photographer. No one bothered with that yet and not doing so violates delisting procedure. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It fulfilled the criteria when it was promoted We shouldn't delist an image just because the criteria changed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Woah, hold on there... what's that!? I know that we have different approaches to delisting when it comes to older FPs, but ignoring changes to FP stringency all toghether? That's going too far surely! Doesn't the first line of the instructions say: "Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standard"? Wouldn't your comment imply that the only way to delist an FP was if it was errantly promoted in the first place? Witty Lama 09:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Fog & Sunny[edit]

Identical location under different weather conditions - Fog reduces visibility
Reason
No longer appears at any article, small image size, uninspiring composition and location, other pictures of fog describe the phenomenon better (e.g. here).
Nominator
Witty Lama
  • DelistWitty Lama 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak something - i.e. comment - I don't know about this one yet. Actually seems better than all the other fog pictures in that article because the varying depths of the trees convey well the density of the fog. A side by side is very useful in this case, but the size is pretty pathetic. Debivort 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Nice concept, but I think a better execution is needed for FP. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, per nom. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, C'mon people, express yourselves! I genuinely do not understand how this one is even given the time of day! It fails so many of the criteria - namely No. 1, 2, 3, 5 (because it's no longer in an article) and 7. If this one gets to stay an FP simply because it already is one, then I give up. Witty Lama 11:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. 8thstar 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Nowt special. ~ trialsanderrors 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and Witty Lama. --YFB ¿ 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Ring-tailed lemur and twins[edit]

Ring tailed lemur and twins.jpg
Reason
Poor image quality (noise, fringing, artifacts), uninspiring composition. Looks like any number of other point-and-shoot zoo snapshots. Not terrible by any means, and reasonably enc, but not featured-quality any more.
Nominator
YFB ¿
  • DelistYFB ¿ 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - this image is scheduled to be POTD on May 26th (5 days' time). I'm going to ask Howcheng if it can be rescheduled to a later date pending the outcome of this delist nomination. --YFB ¿ 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. per nom. It's an uninspiring snapshot. The background is distracting too... Witty Lama 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

High Cross[edit]

High Cross at the Rock of Cashel.
Reason
Has JPEG artefacts (around cross and just above the wall), subject is partially cut off, blown highlights on statue on the right and doesn't add much value to the two articles it's used in (the first article uses it in a gallery, and the second uses it next to a better photo).
Nominator
-Panser Born- (talk)
  • Delist-Panser Born- (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom— Chris H 03:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate delist per nom. Amphy 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Not very special and easily replaceable. --YFB ¿ 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Artistic, but of low picture quality. Witty Lama 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist 6 September 2006 I nominated this for delisting. And finally, we can get rid of this. (Thank you YFB) --Arad 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount Rainier[edit]

Rainiersourdoughridge.jpg
Rainiersourdoughridge artifact sample copy.jpg
Reason
Low resolution
Nominator
Punctured Bicycle
  • DelistPunctured Bicycle 21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, artifacts also. Debivort 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Where? - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There. Debivort 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist wow, low quality. gren グレン 04:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing quality with resolution. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't resolution an aspect of quality? gren グレン 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - resolution, artifacts, subject washed out. !Vote notwithstanding, I really must reiterate that informing the original uploader of the image about the delist nomination is not optional. Punctured Bicycle (and everyone else), please ensure that you have fully complied with the delist procedure instructions. --YFB ¿ 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yelling is unnecessary. Punctured Bicycle 09:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't yelling - yelling would have been CAPS. I just wanted to make sure it didn't get missed - it's been pointed out several times in the nominations below and people are still not doing it. No offence intended. --YFB ¿ 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delis - Change my vote to Keep when the higher resolution is provided. --Arad 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Yeah, I agree. Nothing special about this. Dark and dull... --Vaelta 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • JPEG is a lossy compression technique. Yes, it creates artifacts. The basic idea is that -whith moderate compression- they are unoticeable at normal enlargement ratio. What are you trying to prove by enlarging over 100% ? 62.212.105.216 11:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What am I trying to proove? Hmmm let's see ... that this particular photo has jpeg artifacts that are too obvious? I only posted the blow up when Mgm couldn't see them at 100%. To me, they were obvious from the start. Debivort 15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Uploader Comment Hi, I can have the high resolution image uploaded in a couple of weeks --JediMaster16 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Obi Wan, er, JediMaster, make sure that you don't apply much jpeg compression in the uploaded version, as that was another problem. (Save at like 90% - 100%.) Beautiful shot, aside from this. I hope the high-res version is also detailed. Althepal 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination suspended pending high-res version. --YFB ¿ 18:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delisted. It seems that the high res version never happened. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Yellow Rose[edit]

Close up of a yellow rose
Edit of picture
Less cropped version off original
Reason
Very small (91kB, 940x700), not very encyclopedic. An image that is this tiny should be extremely sharp, but the focus is soft.
Nominator
Cacophony
  • DelistCacophony 00:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Cacophony, low quality image. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Until we see a better rose image appear on FPC I think this one is still pretty good. <sigh> Looks like this will happen with all my Kodak pix... --Fir0002 10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you still do not see a better rose image than the one you want to keep? Because, if you do not I could go to the garden tommorow and take many pictures in the hope you will like one of mine better than yours.--Mbz1 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Delist Well below the current FP quality, irrespective of whether we have a better rose yet. Don't take it too hard if this gets delisted Fir: you bear most of the responsibility for having raised the standard so high :-) ~ VeledanTalk 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Low quality. 8thstar 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not even because of quality, but because the picture is not special in any way and in my opinion has very low encyclopedic value, if at all. I took these and many more like these pictures today:

Rose ggp 1.jpg, Red rose and a bee.JPG, Rose ggp 2.JPG Do I like any one of them to become FP? No, I do not because in my opinion they have no encyclopedic value.--Mbz1 00:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

  • Delist - The first rose picture Mbz1 posted is at least as good, and probably better. But not relevant. A high enc value of a rose should include more than a close up of the flower. This may be a very artistic shot of a rose, but it's not a very enc one at all.

Zakolantern 17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    • I completly agree. Even, if somebody would have nominated a rose picture that I took, I would have opposed it. There's no value in these pictures. Roses are way too common. I do not think any should be FP. --Mbz1 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Delist for low encylopedicity. Unlike Mbz1, I have hope that a FP-quality photo of a rose is possible, but this ain't it. Spikebrennan 18:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Austrian Barrel Organ[edit]

A barrel organ player in Austria
Reason
This is an older nomination (previous discussion) that doesn't meet current resolution and quality standards. It's low resolution, the focus is a little wonky, and there is some minor artifacting visible.
Nominator
mattb
  • Delistmattb 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regretful Delist I love the composition and the guy's expression (so gentlemanly!), but the nom is absolutely correct as far as quality goes.--HereToHelp 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, when I stumbled across it I was really hoping to find a high res version myself. It would be great if one could be found... -- mattb 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist not because it meets current standards (I still disagree strongly with delistings based only on changes in listing rules) but because it doesn't seem to even meet the criteria back when it was listed and probably shouldn't have been put up originally. Cat-five - talk 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I love the photo, and I notice in the original nomination the author provided comment on his love of the photo as well. Has the author been contacted to confirm if a higher res version is available? I'd hate to see this one go. Beeawwb 07:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - other images have a worse res and still they remain to be FPs Booksworm Talk to me! 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have contacted the photographer - he, however is a user on the Polish Wikipedia and I do not know how well he speaks English - if he does at all... (If you do speak Polish, please assist with this issue) Booksworm Talk to me! 20:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It's also the JPEG artifacting everywhere. Anyway, feel free to point out such low-res images so we can discuss their FP status as well. This image wouldn't be promoted today, and I don't believe in grandfathering featured pictures (or articles) in to old standards. -- mattb 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep One of my all time favourite FP's, I think this image is certainly still worthy of the title --Fir0002 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The Photographer has contacted me and he has said that he will attempt to upload a higher-res version of this image.... Booksworm Talk to me! 11:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can manage it, that would be great.--HereToHelp 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So based on the message from the photographer, isn't this nomination suspended then? I want to move the nomination, but I'm not too sure if it is suspended. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 05:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is. MER-C 09:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep even if a new version is not uploaded. Spikebrennan 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Delist – This just isn't FP standard. Makes a mockery of the whole process if this is kept. (No one would support this picture if it were nominated now would they?) Centyreplycontribs – 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment How can you determine that the community wouldn't support this as an FPC? Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist Color contrast is WAY to high, crushed blacks and blown whites are everywhere. It is too small. The Crop is to tight. There is visable motion blur only subtle because of extreem downsampleing. Colors are oversaturated because of the astronomicaly enhanced contrast. -Fcb981 16:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - cool, but too small and too edited to meet current criteria by a long shot. I haven't been around long enough to know what criteria it was nominated under, but I don't mind changing the featured pictures list to keep up with the current standards. Zakolantern 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist :( It is a wonderful subject, yet this fails the quality mark by a long shot. vlad§inger tlk 03:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per other delisters. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost three months with no higher-quality version uploaded and a consensus to delist. If a higher quality image is uploaded, it can go through the FPC process for a week as the other FPC's, as several votes agree that simply larger res wouldn't make it a "slam dunk." --Peter 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delist . --Peter 21:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Redback frontal view[edit]

Female Red-back spider
Reason
The cutout white background is a big reason, you lose perspective that a "natural" white BG shot has. In fact, the photoshopped shadows can be misleading. Size is pretty far below requirements. Sharpness isn't good either.
Nominator
Fcb981(talk:contribs)
  • DelistFcb981(talk:contribs) 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - per Fcb. It also appears to only have 7 legs. The size is way too small for a FP, espcially consider the lack of shapness. I would strongly encourage Fir to give it another go, he should have no trouble greatly improving this. Cacophony 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. -- Chris Btalkcontribs 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - This is a pretty yucky photograph. Especially since it is not in its natural environment and the fake shadow. The spider's face can't even be made out. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Horrible quality. Matt Deres 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not great quality and especially since it's on the white cutout. Cat-five - talk 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bang Pa-In floating pavilion[edit]

Aisawan Dhiphya-Asana Pavilion
Reason
Overexposed quite badly, sky, pillars, etc. Light is too high-contrast and is displeasingly hard. Poor sharpness.
Nominator
Fcb981(talk:contribs)
  • DelistFcb981(talk:contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Fcb. Cacophony 22:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Bad technical quality. --frotht 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • weak delist Noot terrible, but hardly one of our best. Blown highlights, not the greatest clarity, etc. Matt Deres 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Moon merged small[edit]

The Moon
Reason
There are a number of much higher quality images of the Moon at the commons.
Nominator
Chris H
  • DelistChris H 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist at least until a decent downsampled version is provided. It looks a whole lot better at 2000x1465, for example, and is still almost 3MP. However it's overexposed, and not the best "moon" we have from a Martian scientist point of view; full is better. mikaultalk 10:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Oops, I'm confusing this with another moon. How confusing to have four. This one is clearly too small, blurred and incomplete. Subject cut off ;) – mikaultalk 10:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If the commons versions were the only ones being actively used then I would agree however as long as there are versions here being used (and remember the criteria is the best image on Wikipedia which doesn't include commons by most standards (plus all wikipedia servers = wikimedia but no wikimedia = wikipedia htough that's nitpicking) but nitpicking aside just because there may be better images in commons is not a good reason to delist. Cat-five - talk 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist A better image at Commons is a good reason to remove/replace an image in its articles (which doesn't need a vote here even if it's an FP). And if it isn't needed in articles, it should be removed from FP. ~ VeledanTalk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace We do need a moon FP. I would recommend Moon-Mdf-2005.jpg unless somebody finds something better. It's the sharpest, fullest moon of decent rez I could find. Please, look and make sure there isn't a better one out there. (If you're going to delist something because there's a superior image, you need to tell us what that image is!)--HereToHelp 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Delist. See discussion below.--HereToHelp 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist and oppose the suggested alternatives. Come on, we have multimillion dollar telescopes and hundreds of billions in space research and we can't get a good picture of our own moon? I've seen pictures of the moon (probably on wikipedia somewhere) in positively blistering detail, 1000x1000's not going to cut it with the number of small moon landmarks visible + a lack of blurring atmosphere. --frotht 04:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I would respectfully ask you (and everyone else) to try and locate such an image. The only reason this image is being delisted is because of the existence of better images, but nobody has bothered actually finding a superior image to be featured in its place. A good (but by no means exhaustive) look through nasa.gov for full or nearly full moons turns up only [5] and [6] (which are available from the commons as [7] and [8], respectively). The former is dark, unsharp, and has longitude-like lines all over it; the latter has sharp, pixelated edges and weird coloring. I have not searched the websites of other space agencies, so we might have better luck there. Until then, I still stand by my suggested replacement candidate in my above comment.--HereToHelp 18:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess you weren't around when this nomination came up. It wasn't promoted, but only because there were better images available, like this one, which although miles better than the one up for delisting here (and, I have to say, your suggested alternative) still isn't necessarily a stand-out FP candidate. As I'll never tire of pointing out, we don't need a Featured Picture of anything. If, as and when an outstanding shot of the moon is nominated, it will most likely be promoted; there's no need to replace an FP if it's delisted. mikaultalk 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess I didn't see that one; it is indeed superior. Okay, then, delist.--HereToHelp 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Replace with this higher quality image. --NauticaShades 01:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Delisted . Image:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg to be nominated per discussion. --NauticaShades 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly board[edit]

A German Monopoly board in the middle of a game.
Reason
Small, replaceable. Not English but German. Possible copyright violation, game was patented in 1935. Previous delist nom here.
Nominator
MER-C
  • DelistMER-C 03:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - Without even considering the technical shortcomings, of which there are several, the fact that it's not in English is reason enough for me. Cacophony 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist as per my comments on the other previous delist nom here. --jjron 08:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist fails on tech issues (small, low res, almost no printing is legible) and Enc issues (English readers cannot understand the German), etc. Matt Deres 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Shouldn't be a problem with copyight, but technical quality is poor. Aliasing is rampant. --frotht 13:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- I like the fact that it is not English. Even though this is the English Wikipedia, there are other languages out there and I think some people would be intrigued with this Monopoly set. The resolution does not bother me. -Henry W. Schmitt 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, I didn't think this needed to be of great quality... but, it'd be nice to be able to make out each letter, at least. And, no problem with the language for it being an FP, but I think the version in the top of the article should be classic Atlantic City English--not because this is the English language encyclopedia, but because that is the original and still most widely used Monopoly. gren グレン 03:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It should be kept, images express the same doen't matter the "language they talk"

SRauz 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delist it just doesnt say featured to me, needs to be bigger --Childzy ¤ Talk 16:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep --ZeWrestler Talk 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Delisted . --NauticaShades 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vetruvian Man[edit]

Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci
Reason
Superseded by Image:Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg, not used in any articles.
Nominator
MER-C
  • DelistMER-C 03:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Unused and prominent jpeg artifacts. -- Chris Btalk 10:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Childzy ¤ Talk 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. We don't need two of them, and unused. --jjron 07:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist prominent jpeg artifacts.--Luc Viatour 09:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above.--HereToHelp 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Delisted . --Jeff Dahl 02:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyclone Catarina from the ISS[edit]

Cyclone Catarina
Original version
Reason
This is not featured quality. There is too much color reduction over the clouds. Here is what the untouched version looks like [9] The full-sized version is available on request.
Nominator
Good kitty
  • DelistGood kitty 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the top image is the one selected as FP at Commons. An older version is the one selected as FP here at English Wikipedia. The old version also does not meet current FP criteria. Good kitty 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Could have been a good picture, but those patches do detract from it. vlad§inger tlk 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The quality is rather good compared to quite a lot of the hurrican/cyclone pictures here at Wikipedia. NauticaShades 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The editor chose to save it as a medium-low quality jpeg, which is the biggest issue with the image. Also, if you look at the original, you will see that the colors aren't natural at all. It should not be categorized as 'Natural phenomena.' I understand that an image of a penny was also delisted for blatant photoshopping. Also, there are thousands of hurricane/cyclone pictures at Wikipedia and Commons, and this does not represent the best of them all. Good kitty 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the original, which in somewhat better condition. Feel free to try color correcting it. NauticaShades 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep--Mbz1 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
  • Delist Could be much better Buphoff 07:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist I like the picture, but it's got horrible color issues. IPchangesthe box 20:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 07:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Buddhabrot[edit]

Buddhabrot fractal
Reason
Unacceptable resolution for a computer-generated fractal. These images can be produced to arbitrary detail, there's no reason one this blurry and lo-res should be featured.
Nominator
frotht
  • Delistfrotht 20:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delist dissapointing at full rez. Debivort 21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-generate The code is provided at User:Evercat/Buddhabrot.c - It should be trivial to create it at arbitrarily high resolution. Vanished user talk 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to regenerate it, but it's not as simple as changing the height and width in the code, since there's some kind of balance between the number of samples, the color curve, and the resolution that I couldn't understand. (Also, at high resolutions it takes hours to run, so it is difficult to do this by trial and error.) I agree, though, that someone who understands the code and the settings used to produce this image could produce a high-resolution version easily. — brighterorange (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on Evercat's talk page if he ever checks by. NauticaShades 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a very strong random element in what the final outcome looks like. THat one worked out particularly well. Plus I barely remember how the code works and what good settings would be. :-) Evercat 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. If a better version is provided, let it pass through the usual nomination procedure. In the meantime, this shoud be delisted per Froth. ~ VeledanT 00:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Matt Deres 01:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until high-rez replacement is made, then replace, per Vanished user Spebudmak 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Bleh. Perhaps someone could contact the creator?--HereToHelp 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Re-Generate. Shouldn't be too hard. NauticaShades 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick google search throws up this promising Sourceforge project (Windoze only, so don't look at me). Regeneration shouldn't be that hard... MER-C 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Re-Generate. Per above points. It is best not to delist before then. --Sharkface217 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well it's best not to leave this thing featured indefinitely until someone decides to re-render it --frotht 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - rez. --Sean 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)



Delisted . --Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 02:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens from Monitor Ridge[edit]

St Helens from Monitor Ridge feather.jpg
Reason
JPEG artifacts, poor photomontage.
Nominator
TheOtherSiguy
  • DelistTheOtherSiguy 23:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom CillaИ ♦ XC 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please notify the uploader of this image before proceeding further with this delist... --Fir0002 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist As above, and color balance problems. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. 8thstar 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist de Bivort 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 09:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandelbrot[edit]

No caption?
Reason
Unacceptably low resolution (it's a fractal!) and bad compression artifacts
Nominator
ffroth
  • Delistffroth 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist - artifacts are deceptive in an image of a fractal. de Bivort 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Did someone notify the uploader? maybe they can give us a better image. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Uploader notified. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cat-five - talk 10:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Cartoon Villain[edit]

Snidely Whiplash, an example of a stereotypical villain. A villain is a bad person, especially in fiction. Villains are the fictional characters, or perhaps fictionalized characters, in drama and melodrama who work to thwart the plans of the hero. There are many villain stereotypes. In the era before sound in motion pictures villains had to appear very "visually" sinister, and thus many villain stereotypes were born.
Reason
suggested by Mad Tinman in the "mad scientist" delisting for many of the same reasons, and I agree. Uninformative, and overall unimpressive by today's FP standards. It has the added problem of being a dubious free picture (Snidely Whiplash is directly mentioned in the caption from POTD 5-30-2004). It seems to have already been put up for deletion, so this delisting nom might be a moot point anyway.
Nominator
Malachirality
  • DelistMalachirality 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist This is clip-art. Matt Deres 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist This image is atrocious and an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the Lord God Jimbo Wales. Marmalade01 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist For the same reasons given in the mad scientist nom below, and because of the image's problematic free status (given that it's obviously based upon Snidely Whiplash). CillaИ ♦ XC 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question How does one go about notifying a FP's creator of the delisting? --Malachirality 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I would go to the uploader's talk page and leave a note with a link to the discussion. Then mention the fact here. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons deletion debate. Commons VFD is, unfortunately, backlogged four months. Somebody should go and poke Fir. MER-C 06:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, glad we're cleaning these out. --Bridgecross 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist For all the above reasons. --Mad Tinman 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. 8thstar 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Testify, brothers.Spikebrennan 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Adios villain, you shall taunt us no more. --jjron 07:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I won't vote because I'm new to this, but this is an absolutely classic, iconic cartoon character that had a pretty significant influence, a near-perfect illustration of its subject. Is this simply a bias against cartoon images? If there's a concern over copyright status that should not make it any more or less eligible as a featured picture. Either it's free or it's not. That's a yes/no question, not one of degree. If by some minor miracle a cartoon character created after 1923 is in the public domain, great. If not, it will be deleted or reclassified as a non-free image, not just delisted. The mad scientist is an utterly different image - not nearly as well done, not recognizable not iconic. Basically, not a good image.Wikidemo 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the same tired reasons, mainly that there's no reason to go through and remove every FP from the past just because they don't retroactively meet today's standard and this reeks of someone's anal-retentive agenda... though why someone would have an agenda like this is still beyond me. Cat-five - talk 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please spare us the soapbox, Cat-five. How is wanting to delist this slap-dash, possibly copyright violating, image part of some agenda? It's an SVG file, so you can't even whine about people delisting it because it's too small for FP status. The thing is up for deletion on Commons, fercryinoutloud. Matt Deres 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's try and keep it civil, Matt - no need to loose your temper over his opinion ;) This image deserves to be delisted, it just doesn't stand on todays standards, and they are global - we strive to feature only the best content, and if we assume that our old standards, which aren't upto date with good content today, are still good, we fail - and a personal feeling that there is an agenda to delist old pictures just because they don't cut it anymore isn't a good motive. Think about pro athletes - if the bar of quality goes higher, they have to keep up or loose their status. Simples. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But we don't cease to revere our old time sports heroes just because on a direct comparison they wouldn't be up with the current stars of today. I disagree with Cat-five re this image, but his point is valid (if a bit bluntly stated). --jjron 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed maybe that wasn't the best analogy of all - but I always figured that to oppose we had to base ourselves upon some criterion that the image holds quality or not (IE. size, and so on) - didn't know you could oppose based on the idea of an anti old-pic agenda. Well, know I do. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is probably the best representation of villain we will get. It is clean and SVG, it fits the criteria. I mean, would a better representation of a villain be a real photograph? No, because that would be villianizing a really person. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Illustrates the subject, excellent archetypal representation, free license, svg, all good here. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-05 21:44Z

Delisted MER-C 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mad scientist.svg[edit]

Caucasian, male, aging, crooked teeth, messy hair, lab coat, spectacles/goggles, dramatic posing — one popular stereotype of mad scientist.
Reason
SVG clip art is not FP material. It's helpful to demonstrate visually what a mad scientist looks like but it's just a cartoon caricature- there's no real juicy content that makes a FP.
Nominator
ffroth
  • Delist. This has been attemped before, we'll see how it goes. — ffroth 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist for lack of encyclopedic content. A free image of Dr Frankenstein would be much better, for example. de Bivort 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist. Thanks for putting this up again, only I think you were too soft in the delist nom. This is probably my most detested FP - get rid of it! --jjron 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist This is not Wikipedia's best work. There is nothing "impressive" or "highly informative" about it (as per WP:WIAFP). Like froth said, it's just a caricature, which makes its enc value a bit questionable. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. NyyDave 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DelistI agree with the above comments about the lack of encyclopedic comment, this thing s a caricature derivate from a stereotype, a photo of the creator of that same stereotype would be far better. PS: Shouldn't we consider Image:Villianc.svg aswell? --Mad Tinman 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist as above Matt Deres 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above --Bridgecross 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. 8thstar 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Somebody want to take on that horse animation again? Spikebrennan 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the same tired reasons, mainly that there's no reason to go through and remove every FP from the past just because they don't retroactively meet today's standard and this reeks of someone's anal-retentive agenda... though why someone would have an agenda like this is still beyond me. Cat-five - talk 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be brutally honest, the image sucks and it's embarrasing to have it listed among FPs. --ffroth 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's unnecessarily blunt, ffroth - you can make your point get across without comments that can potentially hurt the person who made the image (saying that it "sucks" and thats it's "embarassing" to have it listed is quite offensive). So try to keep more civil, no need to go down that road. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Painter's algorithm[edit]

Painter's algorithm.png
Reason
It's a good image that clearly illustrates the topic, but I don't think it has the WOW factor needed for a FP. Also, it should be an SVG instead a JPG.
Nominator
Calliopejen1
  • DelistCalliopejen1 21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Nice for the article but far from FP material, even if it was SVG. Someone should trace it though, just as a matter of encyclopedia-betterment. --ffroth 03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist de Bivort 04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom (except it's a png, not a jpg, but the point's still valid). --jjron 13:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above --Bridgecross 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure if there's still a sofixit template and I don't have the time to look but if it's mainly the image format a new one should be made and put through FPC with a note saying it's a replacement for htis not delist this right away then wait for someone to create a replacement. Cat-five - talk 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So what you're saying is that we ought not delist it untill proper replacement was made? It doesn't really make a difference if you run through FPC anyways, so might as well delist this now and make a request for the image, then run it through FPC. Doesn't make a difference to the new image and the process on this one goes without impediment. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Pstuart84 Talk 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see it replaced by an svg, if someone could create one.--HereToHelp 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perito Moreno Glacier[edit]

File:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg
Patagonia, Argentina - Perito Moreno Glacier
Reason
This image was originally identified as featured during an August 2004 discussion. Since then, the criteria for featured status seems to have changed a bit. At just 640 × 413 pixels, Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg is relatively small and far below the 1000px minimum. Additionally, while the subject itself is attractive, this image is far from "stunning" and is of quite poor quality. The image is not of high technical standard, high resolution, or among Wikipedia's best work.
Nominator
- auburnpilot talk

Delisted MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

View of Paris[edit]

View west over the city of Paris from the Galerie des Chimères of Notre-Dame de Paris. One of the famous gargoyles (chimères) of the cathedral can be seen at the left of the photograph. The River Seine is visible at the bottom of the photograph. The nearer bridge is the Petit Pont, and the further is the Pont St Michel. In the distance can be seen the distinctive shape of the Eiffel Tower, to the left of which can be seen the golden dome of the Dôme church, within the Hôtel des Invalides.
Reason
Too small, distracting object in foreground, no detail in the view of the city itself.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've always loved this one. In response to the "distracting object in foreground" comment, note that the image currently illustrates Gargoyle and Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, but not Paris. The gargoyle is the _subject_, not a distracting foreground object. Pity about the small image size. Spikebrennan 03:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying that; I was working off the caption mainly. I still think it's too small though. Pstuart84 Talk 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist its tiny --'''[[User:Hadseys|<span style="color:#a0a;font-family:comic sans ms">H<font color="#880088">A<font color="#660066">D<font color="#440044">S</font>E</font>Y</font>S</span>''']] 12:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, regrettably. It's much too small for a reproduceable shot. --Malachirality 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though it's small it's a good shot and I refuse to give into the notion that we have to be anal-retentive about retroactively purging all the old fpc's since very few fall under today's more strict guidelines. Cat-five - talk 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Cat5. There's a limit to how small an FP can be of course, but for me this image falls into a grey area since all the important details are there at current resolution. SingCal 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's tiny, and a quick look at flickr shows taht this angle is a common one for a shot--easily reproducible. There is also artifacting around the edge of the gargoyle, and the picture isn't as sharp as it could be. Calliopejen1 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Matt Deres 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, with today's 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and higher resolutions, this image covers only a few percent of the monitor, making it pretty useless. It's also very reproducable. --Aqwis 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist, per Aqwis. This just isn't wiki's best anymore. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Calliopejen1 and others: if a shot is really outstanding in other areas, size issues might be mitigated. I'd add poor lighting to the growing list of reasons why this one isn't an example of our very best work. --mikaultalk 01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cat-five -- it's unfortunate to delist things just because of ever-changing size standards. If this image is easily reproducible as several people have mentioned, let someone go up the cathedral and re-take the photo with a fancy high-res digital SLR and nominate that one as a replacement. (I myself have taken this very photo too but my camera was a cheap one.) Spebudmak 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist It doesn't need to be a high resolution SLR and the price of the camera is definitely not an issue. The lighting is not great, the composition is sloppy. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist too small. 8thstar 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep until suitable replacement is found I'd go up there and take the picture myself, but I currently can't shell out the money for a trip to Paris. --Sharkface217 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PaintedBunting23.jpg[edit]

Painted Bunting from US NPS (banding)
Reason
Too small, subject cut off, no sense of scale.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 10:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Much too small, original nomination had only one vote! --Bridgecross 14:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist FPC sure has come a long ways since that first archive.. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist too small. 8thstar 22:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist wayy too small --ffroth 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Quite unfortunate, as what is there is actually pretty good.--HereToHelp 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist For obvious reasons, too small Cat-five - talk 07:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 08:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Bumblebee closeup[edit]

Close up photograph of a bumblebee (Bombus pascuorum)
Reason
The picture does not meet the minimum size requirements.
Nominator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk)
  • DelistMuhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. Can't tell what's in focus, but doesn't really look like anything, and size is really very small. Boy these pics have come a long way. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jjron, although I'm pretty sure a plane that includes the eye and part of one of the legs is in focus. Enuja (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought something similar may have been the case (hard to say for sure at such small size), but if that's the case, it really is a shallow DOF. --jjron (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. We have far better bee pictures now. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist: Focus? —αἰτίας discussion 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire Ants[edit]

Fire ants02.jpg
Reason
Not very encyclopedic and does not meet the size requirements.
Nominator
Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk)
  • DelistMuhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Although I certainly think its encyclopedic, it is too small by current standards, it isn't very sharp, and I don't particularly like the composition. Enuja (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per Enuja. Cacophony (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Not sharp. —αἰτίας discussion 15:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Meissner effect[edit]

thumb|200px|Meissner effect using a high-temperature superconductor and powerful Rare-earth magnet.

"In the late 1980s, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researchers conducted research into superconductors. The ceramic superconductors are made from a material that has only very low alternating-current resistance and thus dissipates less power. Magnetic forces between the magnet and ceramic superconductor provide a magnetic cushion that keeps the magnet suspended above the superconductor. Liquid nitrogen cools the superconductor to about 77 Kelvin, producing the magnetic cushion." From the Pacific northwest national lab. March 1987.

Reason
Not available with a free license. Copyright status at PNNL website states that documents may be used for non-commercial, scientific and educational use. Papa November (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Nominator
Papa November (talk)
  • DelistPapa November (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - How did this go from public domain to unfree license? I've been going through the history and I'm not exactly sure how that happened. May you explain it first? --ZeWrestler Talk 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's image use policy only considers images to be "free" if they are also free for commercial use. This image was produced by the PNNL, and although it is a US federal government institution it states on its website that all its documents are for non-commercial use only. This has been noted previously at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE. Papa November (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lower Yellowstone Fall-1200px.jpg[edit]

"Lower Yellowstone Fall. Photo taken by Daniel Mayer and released under terms of the GNU FDL"
Reason
This was one of those images that originally passed its FP nomination when the criteria were not as stringent as it is now. Please view in full size: There are a lot of jpeg artifacts and noise in the clouds, it lacks sharpness, and it's not particularly strong color-wise. All of these facts are more significant due to the image's size, which is just barely above the required dimensions. Smaller images typically hide sharpness and jpeg issues, but they're just as noticeable here.
Nominator
DMCer
  • DelistDMCer 07:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you notify the photographer? MER-C 13:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep listed until there's proof that DMCer has notified the photographer on either his en. or commons. talk page; delist per nom unless photo can be fixed by its creator. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Grant 1 year delist protection and extend that to 2 years if the nominator doesn't notify the photographer by signed courier within 8 hours, this is really just unacceptable. :D\=< (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa there chief; I've notified him. Honest mistake, I lost track of one too many windows (that can happen when you have 140 tabs open). —DMCer 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, ffroth is a tad on the humourist side. 140 tabs, eh? thats... a lot o.0: --Mad Tinman T C 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • And for any budding tab counters using Firefox, here's TabCount for status bar, and Tab Counter for menu bar! Samsara noadmin (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I think when we were going for the 500,000th article on Wikipedia, I had about 100 new article windows open at a single time, and then tabbed between them to save them all at once... I still didn't get it :) — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-07 16:03Z
  • Evaluate different version I'm surprised that old version is still around. A higher res and cleaned-up version is here: Image:Lower Yellowstone Fall.JPG. --mav (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's definitely higher-res, but I think the same problems plague this one as well. Why was the smaller one nominated for FP instead?—DMCer 08:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist The new one is just as badly artifacted as the old. I believe all the proper protocol has been followed here, so I'm going to go with Delist. This would never even make it past PPR on today's Wiki. Clegs (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist easily reproduced/improved. Cacophony (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, not that exceptional. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mccoy Tyner 1973 gh.jpg[edit]

Mccoy Tyner 1973 gh.jpg
Reason
While I think this is an interesting shot, I do not think it reflects the very best that Wikipedia has to offer due to the small size of the image and lack of detail. It also fails to be encyclopedic since it doesn't actually illustrate what this gentleman is doing (if we didn't already know). I have placed a note on the uploader's talk page.
Nominator
Matt Deres (talk)
  • DelistMatt Deres (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Clegs (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist: Due to its small size. I think it illustrates the activity just fine, as the intent is to portray his expression, but the contrast just looks too artificial and leaves a lot to be desired.—DMCer 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as FP, res is lowish but otherwise it's a great and encyclopedic image of McCoy Tyner doing his thing. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't tell what he is doing. I know nothing about him, and all I can tell is that it's a picture of someone in profile. This would actually fit the definition of unencyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)C
  • Delist per nom. If 'his thing' is being obscured by a blurry box then maybe he's 'doing' it, but I honestly can't see much to recommend this (I'll be honest, I didn't know who this was, and whenever I've seen this in FP I've wondered what he was doing. I had guessed he was a musician, but always thought he was probably playing the guitar behind that blurry box - I had to go to the article to determine that he's probably playing the piano here, and the box is the piano. It's actually a nice, rather artistic, photo, but it doesn't meet most of the key FP criteria). --jjron (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Why does it have to show him "doing his thing"? This is McCoy Tyner, that alone should be enough. Portraits of notable individuals meet the enc criterion, nothing else required. Samsara (talk  contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with that, but I don't think it's a very good portrait as such (despite its artistic merits). If he was clearly 'doing his thing' that may compensate for it not being such a good photo of him, but this sort of falls into a middle no-man's land - it's not a particularly illustrative photo of the man, and he's not clearly doing what he's famous for. The only reason it came up was that this was the reason given for a 'keep' vote. And either way, it is still clearly well outside some other criteria. --jjron (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 11:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Love or duty[edit]

"Love or Duty" by Gabriele Castagnola, 1873.
Reason
I was rather surprised to find this promoted image in the Archives (nom here). Given I visit FP almost daily, I was surprised an image had been promoted in the last week that I had never even seen. I then found that a few editors had colluded to have this image promoted for Valentine’s Day, and this image had spent less than two days on FPC before promotion.
Sorry, with no offence meant to anyone involved (who I’m sure were all acting with the best of intentions), this is entirely inappropriate. This image needs to be delisted and go through a proper FPC candidacy. Whether it meets criteria is not really relevant; what is relevant is that it has not had to go through the process that all other images do. Let its status be determined properly please.
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delist and renominate properly according to requirements. Certain privileged editors are not above the requirements. — jjron (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No objection if the procedural issue gives serious offense. DurovaCharge! 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No objection here either. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC). Is the issue that it was promoted out of its turn in the queue, or that it had only spent two days on FPC? What are the applicable rules for this? (I'm not trying to argue with you; but I took a quick look at the top of the FPC page and at the page that describes FP criteria and didn't see a description of the protocol that you are saying was violated.)
      • Start of the third paragraph at the top of this page: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support...". If it was up for say five days, and clearly going to get through I wouldn't worry, but two days is a bit beyond it. --jjron (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    Rules can be ignored, especially if there is consensus to do so. MER-C 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So can I ignore the rule that says I have to put my noms up on FPC at all - why I don't just tag them FP and pop them in the archives. Gee, WP:IAR says I can do so. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Spikebrennan had a spur-of-the-moment idea that seemed like a really fun and positive thing. I trust he intended it respectfully - I certainly did. If it causes other hardworking editors offense, then by all means take it down and renominate. Yet I'll also ask the other editors here to please head over to the FPC talk page and help compile a list of holiday FP requests so we can do this kind of thing on a long enough time frame that everyone is satisfied. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I did think I saw something weird when I noticed an FP that I thought had just been nominated to FPC. It's unfair to the others having to wait months for their FP to show up on the main page. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-17 05:26Z
  • Delist Unfairly promoted. Muhammad(talk) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and renom I didn't like this project either, it was too last minute. Clegs (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why we're having a discussion about whether we are going to have a discussion (it reminds me of Macbeth act 1 scene 1) so it's best if we tackle the underlying issue. Is there another reason, apart from process, why this shouldn't be featured? MER-C 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Precedent, consistency, fairness... Look, I've seen noms up here (in fact I've had noms of my own) that have had nothing but supports after the first day or two, that have later been shot down. In future, shall I just put them through as promoted once they pick up four supports? You specifically pointed out to Dengero that closing after two days was innappropriate, but had already done the same thing yourself. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's more important to enforce fair procedures than to have this listed because if procedures aren't enforced then crappy images can get in or good images can be ignored and the whole system breaks down-- I call this a mistrial. Delist the thing (honestly, why does this even need a delist discussion, just rip that FP tag off since it's not a featured picture; just "rv vandalism") and renom it so we can get this thing featured already, it's a good image. :D\=< (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Delisted . --John254 06:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cerro de la Silla[edit]

Reason
Low technical quality, no "wow".
Nominator
Mangostar (talk)
  • DelistMangostar (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — I still think it's good. DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 18:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral — I'm not a regular on FPC and thus can't judge my own picture according to current standards. I can tell you that I don't have a larger resolution version of the picture, so what you see is what you get (unless you want the original version, with more sky and more city). --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist flat lighting, haze. No inherent barrier to getting a better version (suggest sunrise after rainshower). DurovaCharge! 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify your suggestion? This shot was taken in the late afternoon; I doubt that the lighting would be very good at sunrise from this angle. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per Durova--CPacker (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delist per nom Matt Deres (talk) 01:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


Delisted . --John254 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Caterpillar feeding[edit]

Reason
Fir's pictures (and our FP bug pictures) have come a long way since this. Very little of the caterpillar is in focus at all.
Nominator
Mangostar (talk)
  • DelistMangostar (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist — per nom. DiligentTerriertalk |sign here 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting bug, photo isn't that bad... de Bivort 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, though I do agree it's an interesting bug... Matt Deres (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. 8thstar 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Debivort--CPacker (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cacophony (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. It probably doesn't meet Fir's standards anymore, either.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is nice image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Overexposed background --Mike Spenard (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I-80 Eastshore Fwy[edit]

Looking south above en:Interstate 80, the Eastshore Freeway, near en:Berkeley, California on a Saturday afternoon.
Reason
What appears to be excessive noise reduction has left this image smeary. Poor contrast. Such an easily re-takable image should be have much higher IQ
Nominator
Mfield (talk)
  • DelistMfield (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It shows the road and cars great.--CPacker (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Easily replaceable. Heck, I've got a B/W print of the 405 in LA that works just as well as this. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep BigHairRef | Talk 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I honestly can't see the issues withthis photograph, it's not like you need to be able to see which finger each driver's got up his nose. The picture's plenty sharp enough for me and I'm displaying it on WuXGA monitor, especially when it's going to be no more than a couple of inches across on most screens anyway, it won't be anywhere near noticable)
  • Delist This was nominated 3 years ago, standards have changed since then. This could easily be retaken with better lighting. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. crassic\talk 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep Not a horrible shot, and I'd feel better about delisting if we had a replacement at the ready. I use the "a better shot could be taken" line when critiquing a fresh candidate, but it seems out of place somehow to use it on a delist - go ahead and delist when the better shot gets taken, y'know? Matt Deres (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delist. Agree that it likely wouldn't pass now, mainly for lack of 'wow'. Quality is acceptable (at the low end of). Could definitely be improved on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Prokaryote cell diagram.svg[edit]

old version
Reason
I have created this image who is better than my old version, the new one also covers some issues:
  • adding the plasmids
  • adding the pili
  • a more clear division from the coat layers
  • the removal from the mesosome (wich i was told doesnt excist)

I am planing that as soon as this one is delisted i will nominate the new version --LadyofHats (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominator
LadyofHats (talk)
  • DelistLadyofHats (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Artist and nominator (I think) both want it delisted; saving me the research time. -- carol (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per original nomination. --jjron (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. The new one is beautiful. Kaldari (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist As per Kaldari themcman1 talk 21:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. SpencerT♦C 17:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Delisted . --- Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bunch of grapes[edit]

A bunch of grapes
Reason
About as noisy as a jumbo jet at takeoff. Dirt and scratches all over the place. Questionable encyclopaedic value (check its article use). Other issues. (Looks OK at thumbnail though - original nom here; another bunch of grapes FP here).
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delistjjron (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. — scetoaux (T/C) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom. Mottld (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Kinda sad that a skilled amateur can do better then the Department of Agriculture. (It was good enough for government work.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. This image makes me dizzy if I try to focus on the grapes. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. —αἰτίας discussion 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Delisted . --John254 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Nominated and delisted with the sort of snarky comments that I expect from the Wikipedia. Just one of the many reasons that I quit editing over a year ago. BlankVerse 04:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenger (STS-51-L) Explosion[edit]

Image:Challenger (STS-51-L) Explosion.ogg
Suggested replacement
Reason
The suggested image is of higher res and quality than the current featured.
Nominator
diego_pmc (talk)
  • Delistdiego_pmc (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to replace an existing featured picture, DO NOT CREATE TWO SEPARATE NOMINATIONS - it is completely unnecessary and is a general waste of time. Simply just specify the replacement in the delisting nom. MER-C 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry, didn't know 'bout that. diego_pmc (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace per nom. (I nommed the original.) The replacement has sound, too. Spikebrennan (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist original Oppose alternative. Essential in terms of encyclopaedic value but both clips are too small and I'm pretty sure that better quality footage is available. Guest9999 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per Guest9999. crassic![talk] 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and alternative needs to go through FPC. gren グレン 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. The original was good enough for FP, surely a higher quality replacement is good enough too. If and when something even better becomes available we can delist and replace again. DurovaCharge! 17:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist the alternative is also way too compressed and still relatively low res, they are both sourced to a website that suggests they were uploaded to the internet in 1996 (when dialup internet was the norm) since this is obviously not near the original quality it cannot be featured quality. Thisglad (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No consensus to replace with alternative - renominate alt if you want to try again. --jjron (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-18 Hornet breaking sound barrier (7 July 1999)[edit]

An F/A-18 Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron One Five One (VFA-151) breaks the sound barrier in the skies over the Pacific Ocean.
Reduced grain.
F/A-18C breaking the sound barrier in 2005, much better quality proves that it is possible to reproduce this shot in higher quality and thus that is an invalid reason to not delist, click to see full resolution
Reduced grain.
Reason
disappointing at full resolution, ruined by low frequency digital noise and blurred as a result no fine detail or sharpness left. Thisglad (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Nominator
Thisglad (talk)


  • DelistThisglad (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please inform the original uploader as required and clearly indicated in the instructions above. Thanks, Pstuart84 Talk 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • he has been notified on commons, also this had already been done before you asked Thisglad (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I checked his WP account - apologies for getting this one wrong. Pstuart84 Talk 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
        • no problem, i think he is inactive anyway Thisglad (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Just interested - why would you notify a WP delist on Commons? I think Duffman has been active here more recently than Commons anyway. May not hurt to notify the original nominator as well, since it wasn't the creator, as suggested in the guidelines - User:ChrisO definitely is still active. I want to vote keep on this because it's such a good photo, but quality is bad; I'd like to see a better version if possible. --jjron (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
            • If an image is uploaded to commons then the commons user is the uploader that should be notified don't you think? Also there isn't any proof that the .en user is the same as the commons user. Thisglad (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
              • For a Commons FP, yes. But for an enWiki FP they should be notified on Wikipedia, unless they don't have a Wiki account. (I know where I'd want to be notified for a delist; if you notified me on Commons it would most likely be gone and forgotten before I ever knew about it). Possibly valid point if you can't identify that the user is the same at Commons and Wiki, having said which I can't think of a single instance where I've seen different people having the same username on Commons and Wikipedia, though I'm sure there must be cases. --jjron (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom.--Mfield (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Grainy, and if you look at the jet, it's not good. SpencerT♦C 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If there's a better version available, it's not turning up for me. The photos on the various .mil websites are all versions of this one. A slightly better, though different pic can be found here, but it doesn't have the same visual appeal. This also is slightly better quality and is actually on Commons already. I am beginning to think that planes zipping along at mach one do not an easy subject make. :) This was the best one I found, but it's no great shakes. Matt Deres (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
another reason for the lack of appeal is because it was likely taken with a film camera, which are grainy at high ISO film but the color noise is largely generated by the scanner unlike digital cameras, analog equipment does not have that effect, so this is likely a poor quality scan of a mediocre image Thisglad (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Sure quality isn't great, but it's a stunning photo and widely used, so I'm willing to give it some leeway. Probably amongst the most eyecatching FPs we have. None of the others Matt links to come close to this for composition; I'm also suspecting this subject is not something you're going to snap off on a day at the park. If anyone can show me otherwise I may reconsider. --jjron (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this image cannot be easily reproduced. It must be a very lucky shot, in addition to requiring another supersonic "camera platform"... --Janke | Talk 07:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • for comparison see the 2005 image of the same aircraft model breaking the sound barrier in the same geographic location, and it is obviously not blurred and artifacted to the same degree as well as being higher resolution. The inferior quality of this image is clearly not because of the shooting conditions. Thisglad (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Compositionally I think the original is still the best, but should it be delisted, which it probably will be, I would support a nomination of the alt posted here. --jjron (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • weak delist The composition is beautiful and the thumbnail is stunning, but the full-size shot is just horrible. I can appreciate that it's not easily reproducible, but the fact that I found three alternates in a few minutes indicates that the stunt has been done several times in the past and very likely will be done again. The FPs should be the best that WP has to offer, but clicking on this photo is just disappointing. If there was any kind of historical aspect to this shot (is there?), I would probably switch. Matt Deres (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it requires another transonic camera platform. A lot of the videos and stills online seem to be shot from the decks of aircraft carriers and other ships, most likely because that's the environment with the most supersonic planes and high moisture environment that will result in somebody capturing a shot of it. If we are going to see a better shot of this phenomenon, I'd bet its from somebody with a the right camera/lens and panning technique on board a ship rather than in the air. In addition, in the right environment this is probably a very repeatable and predictable event, you just need to be in on an aircraft carrier to maximize your chances of seeing it :) Mfield (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - so next time you're out on your aircraft carrier and your mate's going supersonic in his fighter jet, can you take a few snaps for us? ;-) --jjron (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, from Flickr, to prove that better images exist [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], although not under CC Mfield (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added new versions of the images. I have removed the grain, but I myself have doubts about the images actually being better. As for now, I keep myself from voting. diego_pmc (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist - Grain is horrible even at 800px wide, colours appear to have been reduced to 256 or less (see shadows) and the full size image is not sharp (nor are any of the altered ones with reduced grain). Compare with Image:Su-27 on landing.jpg. As mentioned above, I've seen video footage of this effect from aircraft carriers so a good quality photo should be pretty easy with a decent camera. --Ozhiker (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tram interior[edit]

The interior of a tram, photographed in Vienna, Austria in the summer of 2002. The car shown here is one of the oldest currently in use on Vienna's tracks.
Reason
A nice enough photo, but doesn't overly strike me as FP standard on a few counts. Not sure of EV - no longer used in any articles. Not sure about the little girl - to me she reduces EV, some may argue she adds compositionally to the photo. Original nom here. --jjron (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delistjjron (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Matt Deres (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and add to appropriate article. I think it's actually quite well-done, and to a high technical standard. And trams are meant to carry people, after all. An empty tram would be much less encyclopaedic. It's also an incredible feat of photography, in that it almost perfectly captures the feel of a 1920s illustration, which is, of course, ideal for a tram of that age. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right that trams are meant to transfer people of course, but that doesn't seem to be happening here; this looks much more like a holiday snapshot of someone's kid, who happened to be sitting in an old tram. She's the part in best focus. Even ignoring that, this really just looks like any old bus from the inside. Surely the distinctive bits would be on the outside? Matt Deres (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not...really. There's a definate 20s/30s look and feel to that tram. The outside is ALSO encyclopaedic, but the inside is as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There were no 1920-s tram in regular operation in 2002. The last surviving Vienna tram of 1920s, type M/m (1928-1929), was completely retired by 1979 (stadtbahn type N1/n2 operated to 1982, but these were 1950s bodies on 1920s bogies). The photo looks like a plain Type E/c to me - a 1960s model, very common to date. NVO (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Seems more appropriate to feature on Commons than here. Not especially encyclopedic (thus why it isn't in any articles). Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Just seems like a good quality snapshot. crassic![talk] 02:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist grainy and since when were trams ever clean :P --Hadseys ChatContribs 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Delisted --KiloT 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

F1 car[edit]

Mark Webber at 2004 US F1 Grand Prix
Reason
Fails size requirement, tilted.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per nom, and because we have many much better racecar pictures. Mangostar (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too small. I think the tilt is due to it being on a corner. Clegs (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per size. crassic![talk] 17:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Too small, but also consider that (a) á la Clegs, the tilt is from the corner (b) the subject is rather large given the frame and (c) is is difficult to get a perfectly framed, motion blur-less image of a large object going close to 200mph.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Bridge, London[edit]

Millennium Bridge, London
Reason
Low resolution, false colour, cut off.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Black and white isn't exactly "false colour", and 1381 pixels wide is 381 pixels above the minimum for Wikipedia FPs. Are you thinking of Commons standards? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It meet the standards but only just, which is why I said low resolution and B&W is certainly false colour in that the subject is not monochrome in reality. Pstuart84 Talk 10:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think we differ on the meaning of the word "just". This image is only 119 pixels short of even the Commons requirement. I don't see how you can cite that as a motivation for delisting. I really don't. 1000 pixels is the requirement. This image meets it. And black and white is NOT "false colour" (see article). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it's quite clear I said it was "low resolution" and not that it failed the minimum size requirement. There is also no good reason to feature anything other than a true-colour image of this bridge. Pstuart84 Talk 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll echo Pstuart84's sentiments here. We've already discussed the criteria in other noms and I think you'll find (although it doesn't seem to be spelt out clearly enough on the page) that the minimum resolution is merely a minimum to be taken seriously, but not necessarily the minimum to be automatically accepted without further examination. It would be short-sighted to be too absolute on resolution, since there are so many factors involved. We can and will still apply our own judgement on whether there is sufficient detail in the image given the particular subject and how significant/easily replicable it is, and also whether it is satisfactorily sharp for a given resolution. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • From the article I quoted: When applied to black-and-white images, true-color means that the perceived lightness of a subject is preserved in its depiction. Was it too much trouble to read? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist a lot of artifacts combined with lack of sharpness Thisglad (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist This really should be in color. Mangostar (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the cutting off of the side is unfortunate however the image of the bridge span itself which is really the main focus of the bridge in my opinion is what matters. Whether an image is in black and white or color except when the color of the object is a key element (pictures of flora and fauna for example) in my opinion never has and never will be a valid reason to oppose an image's promotion or delist it and if it weren't for the image cutting off part of the bridge I would probably be using "strong" instead of "weak" as the adjective to describe my views. Cat-five - talk 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist the closest part of the bridge seem soft like inadequate DOF/poor choice of hyperfocal point. Fairly low resolution, and easily reshootable. Mfield (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist no reason for B&W. Cacophony (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think I may have a better photo than this one, or if not, it shouldn't be too hard to take a new one. Plenty of construction cranes now sour the skyline around St Pauls Cathedral though, which doesn't help the view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If somebody had actually got in touch with me, I could have provided a better copy from the original source... This version was cropped etc for aesthetic reasons, not designed for 'accuracy'. PaulLomax (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Koh Samui[edit]

Koh Samui
Reason
Low resolution, washed out, doesn't depict much.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delistkm5 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Beats me how this ever got featured; a poor scan of a poor image in the first place. --Schcamboaon scéal? 12:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist No wow. Mangostar (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist how the cow did this pass in the first place? Not encyclopedic of anything. Clegs (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Cacophony (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Horrible quality. Crassic! (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Per all above. Harryboyles 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Terrible grain/low quality, palm tree is cut off, not encyclopedic... Reguiieee (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika[edit]

Fisherman on Lake Tanganyika
Reason
Fails size requirement, poor quality overall, questionable EV.
Nominator
Pstuart84 Talk
  • DelistPstuart84 Talk 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the original nom, a 3500x2500 version exists somewhere. Anyone know this guy's website, where you could maybe ask him? --Schcamboaon scéal? 12:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Poor quality, low-resolution, tells us little to nothing about Lake Tanganyika. Mangostar (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Clegs (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Cacophony (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per size requirements. If there is a 3500x2500, I'd consider replacement. Crassic! (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, Mangostar is right, nobody fishes Lake Tanganyika or lakes anyhow. No encyclopedic value. --Blechnic (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Reichstag flag[edit]

Deleted FP version
Alternative version: Soldiers raising the flag of Soviet Union on the roof of Reichstag building in Berlin, Germany in May, 1945. (Same event as featured pic; different angle.)
Reason
Deleted from commons per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstag flag.jpg. Removed from FP Gallery here. (I don't remember what the original image looked like, nor where its original nomination would be.)
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delist. Deleted image. — jjron (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Original nom here; alternate version added on right. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Though now I look at the deletion nom over at commons, this pic probably has the same copyright status as the other image, so should probably be deleted too. --Schcamboaon scéal? 10:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This other picture is hosted locally and is tagged fair use => it's ineligible and probably not deletable. It needs a rationale though. This can safely be delisted, I might do it tomorrow. MER-C 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen killing a Jewish man[edit]

File:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg
Deleted FP version: A member of Einsatzgruppe D is just about to shoot a Jewish man kneeling before a filled mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine in 1942. The back of the photograph is inscribed, "The last Jew in Vinnitsa".
Available version: A member of Einsatzgruppe D is just about to shoot a Jewish man kneeling before a filled mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine in 1942. The back of the photograph is inscribed, "The last Jew in Vinnitsa".
Reason
Image has been deleted - see here and Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/World War II (look for the missing image in the gallery). However I believe it was promoted in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Einsatzgruppen / Holocaust beginnings. There were concerns over licensing in the nom, but it was eventually promoted. We appear to still have access to the original version from the nom, which I have put up here as Available version.
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Delist deleted image. I'm happy to support a Replace if licensing, etc on the Available version is clear. — jjron (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Commons deletion request. MER-C 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the tagging on the non-deleted image is correct, then we can ask the deleted version to be restored here and then refeatured. MER-C 07:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm not that clear on the licensing issues, etc, to be honest, but part of the reason I put it up here rather than just 'auto-delisting' or swapping for the available version was in case someone could put the featured version back up here. I think Commons admins still have access to deleted versions, so if one of them is around perhaps they could retrieve it and replace it here? --jjron (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist as ineligible. This image is non-free in the US as in Germany. Another case of faulty labeling by the USHMM. Perhaps someone should do a trawl of similar photos and confirm that they are correctly tagged. Mangostar (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have evidence that it is non-free in the US? the arguments on the nomination made a decently good case for it being free. So far the only people saying that it is still under copyright in the US (I know it still is in Germany) have not put forth any evidence to support their claims. Until then, I will have to say Keep. I guess the correct thing would actually be to Replace with existing. Clegs (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, wikipedia commons has different copyright rules than the english wikipedia, if the image was used in war crime trials as evidence, it most likely is in fact devoid of copyright as seized property (and who is the author of the image, where was it first published?) Thisglad (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • How do we know this is seized property? So far we have no evidence of this, and without such evidence there is no way we can claim it is PD. It didn't even come from a U.S. archive, and Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images makes it seem as though even if it did, it is unlikely to PD in the US. In my view, the burden of proof is on those claiming it is PD, not on those claiming it is non-free. See also the copyright note about Nazi photos at NARA: "Some of the materials in this record group may have been of private origin. The fact that such materials were seized is not believed to have divested their original owners of any literary property rights in them. Anyone who publishes such materials in whole or in part without the permission of the original owners or their heirs may be held liable for infringement of property rights."[13] The commons discussions on this topic have been overwhelmed by people voting without any valid reasoning or sourcing. The only (!) source (Struk) I could find that had been cited anywhere in the commons discussion only mentions copyright in passing and blatantly misstates the law ("The most elementary of copyright laws states that the creator must be identified before copyright can be held." - um, no...exactly the opposite). Mangostar (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Heinrich Hoffman was the official photographer of Adolf Hitler, his collection is in the U.S archives and judged to be public domain and his family actually took the U.S to court over this (the court ruled the works were the property and copyright of the U.S gov by act of law), so while some copyrights were restored to the original owners, not all were as seized property, but you are right that there is no proof that this particular photo is public domain, an original source is needed to determine that, who first published this photograph? I would like to know Thisglad (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I've looked around and haven't found anything besides what I added to the image description page. Mangostar (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Delisted . Irrespective of the ultimate question of whether this image is indeed in the public domain, the fact that the original image has been deleted, and that the substitute is presently classified as "fair use", effectively precludes the retention of this image as a featured picture. I specifically disclaim any responsibility for the demotion of this image from public domain to fair use status, which, in my opinion, amounts to a sordid attempt to uphold the dubious copyright claims of a Nazi photographer. --John254 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Long Beach, CA at night[edit]

Long Beach, CA at night
Reason
Way too small and buildings are tilted
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Long_Beach,_CA_at_night
Nominator
Mfield (talk)
  • DelistMfield (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree, and more obviously than the buildings being tilted, all the reflections are subsequently tilted. A fairly ordinary picture by current standards. Very little wow. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Insufficient detail, and blown hightlights Thisglad (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per Diliff. Cacophony (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. Small, uninformative, and tilted. NauticaShades 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I take issue with nominations that say "way too small" when the picture is actually above the limit set out by the criteria. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It was more of a reference to the 480 height than anything, I will strike the 'way' out, but this is an easily retaken image that has been cropped from the original to improve composition. If it had been shot correctly composed in the first place then it would not have ended up this small. Mfield (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You weren't the first one, so don't feel bad or anything. I'll keep reminding other people as well. I've said previously that if people feel the standards have changed, we should change the criteria to reflect this. Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom., Diliff and Nauticashades. —αἰτίας discussion 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist, just doesn't pass the rigors of our current system gren グレン 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion clock[edit]

Dandelion clock
Reason
Low resolution, unsharp, not used in the article anymore
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dandelion clock.jpg
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)

Delisted MER-C 07:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Pollen and Gerbera[edit]

Pollen from a Gerbera
Reason
I don't think it really has the resolution to demonstrate its subject clearly. There are a number of imo superior images in the pollen article and this one is just tacked on right at the end.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Pollen and Gerbera
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)

Delisted MER-C 07:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Aust blue dragonfly02[edit]

A macro of an Australian Blue Dragonfly
Reason
Smaller than the minimum size requirements, image appears to be noisy and quality is not up to today's standards.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aust blue dragonfly02.jpg
Nominator
Muhammad(talk)
  • DelistMuhammad(talk) 18:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Very messy BG, and also too small... --Janke | Talk 10:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we suspend this for a month so that I can have a chance to upload a higher res file from the original? (I don't have the originals with me in Melbourne) --Fir0002 11:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Higher res won't change the messy bg... --Janke | Talk 13:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Additionally, the background is very distracting. —αἰτίας discussion 01:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Much better dragonfly images have been promoted in the last year. Cacophony (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delist. The background is the big flaw; the size is not such a big deal since this was an early promotion, but the messiness makes this not what we would accept now composition-wise.--ragesoss (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Regardless of size, the composition is subpar. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Corn cobs[edit]

Variegated maize ears
Reason
Low resolution, bad crop and lighting (burned a bit), lack of detail in some areas. Easily replaceable in terms of EV, not hard to reshoot more successfully, no wow whatsoever.
Previous nomination/s
None
Nominator
TodorBozhinov
  • DelistTodorBozhinov 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist I quite like the image, but the blown highlights kill it imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist I really was hoping to vote keep but blowing up the thumbnail was a huge disappointment. Very low quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Janke | Talk 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 03:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ladybird[edit]

Ladybird
Reason
Very low depth of field, relatively low resolution for a common subject. Also not the best composition for showing what a ladybug looks like.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Ladybug_on_a_leaf
Nominator
Calliopejen1 (talk)
  • DelistCalliopejen1 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist looks like there is a little camera induced motion blur as well. --Leivick (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. While I am not in favour of willy-nilly applying all modern standards to older FPs, sadly we will gradually have to lose some of our earlier promotions. Agree with points made in the nom, in particular extremely shallow DOF and unfavourable angle, and could add several other technical issues. --jjron (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist. per above. Entirely possible to shoot a better one. --Janke | Talk 20:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Delisted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

433 Eros[edit]

The asteroid 433 Eros was named after the Greek god of love Eros. This S-type asteroid is the second-largest near-Earth asteroid. This image shows the view looking from one end of the asteroid across the gouge on its underside and toward the opposite end. Photo credit: NASA
Reason
A rather small picture that does a poor job of illustrating an uninteresting subject.
Nominator
Cynops3
  • DelistCynops3 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Transcluded just now, by me. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • delist - whether you think the subject is uninteresting is essentially irrelevant, however, it looks up sampled and barely makes the res cutoff. de Bivort 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Better illustrates black.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Original nomination here. --jjron (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist Enough said above. -- mcshadypl TC 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist As much as I love space photographs, this is a horrible picture which barely show the subject in question. Jerry teps (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Delisted --Noodle snacks (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Pin tumbler locks[edit]

Old raster images
New vector images
With no key
With bad key
Reason
There are new SVG versions of each image. Also, I am proposing that the three vector images be part of a Featured Picture Set, with the one that has no key being the lead image.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2004#Pin tumbler with key
Nominator
--pbroks13talk?
  • Delist and replace — --pbroks13talk? 07:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace per nom, though I'd like an image without the key, with the tumblers in their original positions.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I made a version with no key; should it be featured along with the other two? --pbroks13talk? 04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps as a {{FeaturedPictureSet}}?--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
        • That would make sense. Do I need to set up a different nomination to do that? --pbroks13talk? 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't know, but probably not, as long as this nom is clear in stating that that is the new intent and remains open for a few weeks (both for the sake of transparency). Featured seats also require a lead image. Logically, that would be the new keyless one, but I think the third one is best at demonstrating the mechanism without accompaniment.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) I added information the proposal of it being a featured set. Also, I think that the keyless one should be the lead, since, as you said, it is the most logical choice. --pbroks13talk? 05:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If nobody comments we might have to move it up to a conventional nom, but in the meantime, what if took image 2 and showed a different key that mis-aligns the tumblers? (Can you make it a different color, to show that it's not the same key?)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, we might have to. I made a "bad key" one. What do you think? --pbroks13talk? 07:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Excellent image, but if nobody sees them in a few days, start a new nom, especially since it's now listing two brand new images.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The bad key image is fantastic, and I feel that all four of the newer images should be used together, probably in a grid of four, with no key (top left), key (top right), unlocked (bottom left), and bad key (bottom right). But yes, start new noms for each of these four and delist the old png images.-timsdad (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
          • All separately? With four images, it makes much more sense to do a set.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The new nomination is located here. However, this delist nom is still up. --Pbroks13talk? 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Obvious Delist since the new one/s have now been promoted separately, basically making the old ones here redundant. --jjron (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Wronkiew (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dust storm in Texas[edit]

Dust storm approaching Spearman, Texas April 14, 1935.
Reason
Nearly all of the very earliest FP promotions have been delisted; this one slipped through somehow. At 700 × 459 pixels, file size: 68 KB it'd probably be a speedy close by today's standards. And while it's a good illustration of the dust storm, the phone/electrical lines are a serious esthetic detriment. It passed in the very first month of FPC before subpages, so linking directly to the discussion archive.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/March-2004#Dust_Storm
Nominator
DurovaCharge!
  • DelistDurovaCharge! 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist And impressive thing to photograph but this is no where near FP standards. Chillum 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. I was going to suggest it may be a likely candidate for VPC assuming it gets delisted here, but looking at its article usage unfortunately I can't really say I'd support it there either. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep As I've stated in every other delisting nom for older FPS I don't feel that it is appropiate to delist a nom just because it does not meet the stupidly high standards of many people now even if it did meet or exceed those of the past. The rules on what constitutes a FP. Cat-five - talk 05:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • So basically your argument is that delisting shouldn't be possible? --jjron (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps not quite impossible. A couple of the early promotions such as File:Western-Grey-Kangaroo-with-joey.jpg were deleted as copyvio. But featuring standards for many processes rise with time. Many of the featured articles that were promoted in 2004 or 2005 have been upgraded or delisted. Featured topics keeps raising the bar also. DurovaCharge! 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Not impossible but I think that there should be a better reason than "times have changed" for delisting an image. Cat-five - talk 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
          • ...the phone/electrical lines are a serious esthetic detriment doesn't count? DurovaCharge! 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I agree that we shouldn't delist just because it no longer meets size guidelines or whatever the latest fad is. But I do think you have to evaluate the delist, not just spontaneously oppose it. As Durova says the composition is far from good, and as I said in my support of this delist, given the image's usage on Wikipedia I wouldn't even support it at VPC where the standards are not so "stupidly high". --jjron (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: This doesn't meet current criteria in several areas, and there are probably better images of dust storms out there which can replace it. Maedin\talk 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Definitely has some severe issues. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 11:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc statue, Notre Dame[edit]

A statue of Joan of Arc in the Notre Dame de Paris.
Reason
There were good oppose reasons in the original nom, and I think WRT today's standards, it's too noisy, not sharp enough, and evident of jpeg compression.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joan of Arc statue, Notre Dame
Nominator
ωαdεstεr16kiss mei'm Irish

Delisted MER-C 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney Concert Hall[edit]

Original FP
Proposed replacement
Reason
I propose a delist and replace by the larger version shown on right below the original verison. The proposed replacement is 4500×3500 while the existing version is considerably smaller (1,024×768). In addition the proposed replacement is much truer to life with respect to color (the current example is very red), and is of higher quality IMO. FWIW, the proposed version is also an FP at Commons and es:wiki.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Walt Disney Concert Hall
Nominator
ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣
  • Delist and Replaceωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace — neuro(talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto neuro and wωαdεstεr WiiWillieWiki 01:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist (and not replace) see (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Image-Disney Concert Hall by Carol Highsmith edit.jpg) for why. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep So far no real reason has been given to delist other than that the replacement is better however as per the above the replacement is not a good fit so this should be kept. On a side-note I'm somewhat disappointed that delisting would be used as an end-run around the FPC nom process when an image is nommed and not promoted. Cat-five - talk 06:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I made a mistake and didn't notice that the alternate had previously been nom'ed (and failed). And I resent the fact that you're saying I'm trying to screw the system here. I have no vested interest in this photo or the failed nom; I just felt it was technically superior (the original is really red and unnatural) and a good replacement for one that just barely meets our current criteria. In fact, the alternate was nominated before I was even really active (see last chart) here at WP. Interestingly, the WP FP is stuck in a gallery in both articles it's used in (EV much?), while the alt is the main image of its home article and not in a gallery in the other. Assume bad faith if you'd like, but I had nothing to do with their current placements in articles. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 07:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've been wondering about all these delist noms, and more to the point how none of original nominators or creators seem to be commenting on them. Just a quick check of Wadester16's contributions and a few user talkpages would indicate that you are not following the clear guidelines which state "Ensure that you have notified the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator on their talk page to let them know the delisting is being debated. Delist nominations cannot proceed unless this notification has occurred." Correct me if I'm wrong, but otherwise all these delists should be suspended. I keep expecting more, especially from regulars. --jjron (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • How often do regulars even offer a delist nom? Maybe another variable should be added to the delist nom procedure that requires the nominator's username to be included, with instructions on the nom form itself to notify the nominator/uploader. I skipped the instructions because I've nom'ed so many times normally, I assumed they were the same. Something like: nominator = <!-- Place original nominator's name here ([[User:XXX|XXX]]) and be sure to leave a message with the nominator and photographer about this delist nomination --> Just a thought. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, replace with candidate. 1st picture not up to our FP standards, too small and blurry. 2nd one is much better, and worthy of being a FP. Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist but do not replace. The proposed replacement is a completely different picture so isn't really an appropriate replacement. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Delisted , subject cut off => not replaced. MER-C 08:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Morning[edit]

Blue Morning Glory Close-up
Reason
Nice enough, but zero enc because of the crop, and resolution is lacking
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BlueMorningGloryClose.jpg
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Until the other day, it was the only cropped image of a flower: unacceptable. This just recently passed, but the point is to get a close-up view of the disc florets (hence its presence in Inflorescence). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For this, and the three others below, did you notify the nominator and/or photographer? MER-C 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • A distraction caused me to leave the computer before that, but its done now. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist The saturation is way too exaggerated. ZooFari 04:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Unclear what species, borderline size, and the Morning glory article demonstrates that there are better ways to illustrate the subject (I guess that's why this pic got relegated to a gallery). Narayanese (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Pretty, but I'm inclined to agree with the above. At a slightly different angle, though, this sort of thing could be a useful and attractive way to present the stigma and/or stamens, so I wouldn't deny such images out of hand. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cacophony (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist pretty much per nom, while it's a nice image the quality is low and because of the angle the encyclopedic value is much lower than it could be to illustrate the subject. Cat-five - talk 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hebe x franciscana[edit]

Hebe x franciscana
Reason
Bad Lighting, low res, very little in focus
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hebe x franciscana.jpg
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Yes, the lighting on this is far less than optimal. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Blown highlights with strong shadows don't match together this way. ZooFari 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: This isn't illustrating the subject very well at all. Maedin\talk 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yellow-rattle (Rhinanthus minor)[edit]

Yellow-rattle (Rhinanthus minor)
Reason
Not sharp, low res, no contrast
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2004
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I just noticed this one myself recently and thought it probably isn't up to current standards. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist unacceptable DOF. ZooFari 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. DurovaCharge! 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: Agreed. Maedin\talk 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Denver Lightning[edit]

Lighting in Denver
Reason
Not used in any articles, didn't really ever have enc in Denver
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Denver Lightning.jpg
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agreed, it doesn't really have any EV, particularly when not actually illustrating an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Not much EV but a very striking picture--Muhammad(talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per the above, no enc. value Cat-five - talk 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I never liked this one. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 10:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Keplers supernova[edit]

Keplers supernova.jpg
Reason
Originally nom'ed in 2004 (then, weirdly, renom'ed in 2006). Low quality for what we expect out of NASA these days, and considerably under the 1000px×1000 size requirement. Suggest delisting of this image.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/October-2004#Kepler.27s Supernova (2004) and then Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Supernova (2006)
Nominator
ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣
  • Delistωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Think we can do better (and bigger) for space images. Fletcher (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Fletcher. This would be a pretty quick close against these days. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: Too small. Maedin\talk 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. DurovaCharge! 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm going to call put up or shutup on the above argument about finding a replacement, I'm sure there are better space images out there however very few of them are FP's so I doubt that we're really to the point where having too many FP's of space images that are better than this is an issue. Cat-five - talk 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a bigger image on the Chandra website but it was upsampled significantly (no direct link though due to funky Javascript). MER-C 06:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no suggestion to find a replacement; this is a pure delist nom, so your "put up or shut up" demand bears little weight (nicely put, btw). If you care to spend the time finding one, more power to you (thanks to MER-C for the above link, but he's right, the upsampling is painfully obvious). And do you really think we're lacking in deep space FPs? Really? ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cat-five. Striking, scientifically significant image, very widely used in WP, good candidate for grandfathering. Also see the interesting composite backstory at File:Ssc2004-15a.jpg. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep SHallathome (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Original and historically accurate, beautiful and unique so I vote keep!
  • Comment Nominator informed of delist nom. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣TC♣ 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

STOP THE PRESSES - I've uploaded a higher-res version over it. It should be more-or-less identical otherwise, save maybe a slightly different crop of the black space around it. It shows some graininess from some of the instruments used to investigate it (also visible in the old one), but I think it's fine, and well over size requirements now. (In other words, keep) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replacement image! Very cool astrophoto. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the replacement is one of the images I commented about earlier on. The funkiness in the red channel strongly suggests it is upsampled. Comments? MER-C 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My presumption - perhaps wrong - is that this is because the composite mixes several images from different sources, and, for whatever reason, the Spitzer Space telescope's image was lower resolution compared to the others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A back of the envelope calculation based on telescope diameter and wavelength gives angular resolution as follows: red: 730 - 4400 milliarcseconds, yellow: 3 - 60 milliarcseconds, green ~0.3 milliarcseconds and blue: ~0.01 milliarcseconds. These probably aren't the real resolutions of the scopes. MER-C 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Then I honestly don't know, ut the graininess is isible in all versions of this image I can find - look at the upper left of te 700px version and it's clearly visible. Maybe the person who assembled the images messed up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've since found out that this image has a FOV of 300 arcseconds and (from an above nom) Chandra has a resolution of 0.5 arcseconds (this image represents the limit of the scope) and the various Spitzer resolutions are here. The reds are definitely upsampled by a factor of at least 4.5. MER-C 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that's the limit of the ability of this to be photographed at this time, and the better resolution of the other things justifies upscaling that in a composite, I think it's best to just accept this as the best currently possible image of this remnant at these wavelengths. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Very nice picture. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep original, revert to original size. There is no additional information in the new file, despite the number of pixels. Looks like a straight upsample. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The replacement looks upsampled and way too hi-res. The cited nasa page only has versions up to 750px. The 2000px version on the harvard site has about the same level of detail, and the one currently in use adds nothing but filesize. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist It's a beautiful picture; absolutely amazing. However, it's not quite featured picture material. The larger size, as Mvuijlst said, looks like it's just an upsample, and both versions are a little grainy. hmwithτ 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist Beautiful image but not FP quality. -download | sign! 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Quality isn't great, and I'm not exactly thrilled with the upsample either. SpencerT♦Nominate! 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist It may be a good picture, but not all space pictures have to be featured, especially one without the technical quality. Also could someone please get rid of the upsampled version. Reguiieee (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pieris brassicae Caterpillar[edit]

The caterpillar of the Large White butterfly (Pieris brassicae)
Reason
Clearly not up to scratch quality wise.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)

Delisted MER-C 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Meadow Argus[edit]

Meadow Argus (Junonia villida)
Reason
I noticed this adding an image of my own. Fir has taken a number of superior Meadow Argus images and this one really isn't featured quality.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Meadow Argus butterfly
Nominator
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Noise or over-compressed? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agreed that the macro bar has risen considerably since that was promoted and Fir would no doubt agree. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He actually has quite a few better images of this species sitting on commons doing nothing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • True those are of higher technical quality thanks to advances in my camera gear, but this one is very strong compositionally. With the single head of grass bent delicately under the weight of the butterfly and the green background contrasting with the orange colouration of the wings, this shot IMO is very strong photographically if not technically. --Fir0002 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Since i don't have the technical knowledge i will refrain from voting, but i agree with Fir002 that the composition is great. I went to the Meadow Argus page, and it is clearly the most striking picture there. Therefore, i think it would be a shame to delist this one without a suitable replacement... Noodle, could you please give us a link to one of the better, unused picture you told us about ? Ksempac (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've used a gallery since there are a few. All of these are technically better and hence make better illustrations in my view:

(pity about the wing) seems to be a common feature of photographed Meadow Argus' :) --~~~~

Meadow argus06.jpg
Meadow argus07.jpg
MG 8914.jpg

Noodle snacks (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I like the composition of the third one, but dislike the blurred wing on the foreground. On the other hand, I LOVE the fourth one. BTW, can someone explain me what are the technical flaws of this FP ? I'm still unable to spot them (or maybe that's because the body seems blurred ?)Ksempac (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Delist Watching the picture at the full size and comparing it to others current nominations, the technical flaws are obvious. Ksempac (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Delisted MER-C 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bee mid air[edit]

Bee flying
Reason
Bad lighting and quality. Replaced in articles by much superior image which is nominated above.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bee mid air.jpg
Nominator
Muhammad(talk)

Delisted MER-C 07:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lomatium parryi[edit]

The flower of Lomatium parryi plant, native to west North America. Native Americans used to consume these (read Lomatium). Image was shot in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Reason
Procedural: Part of a set of awkward promotions where a majority was inf avour of promoting, but problems were identified, and the consensus was overruled. If the consensus is for delisting - defined as strict 66% supermajority to delist - then the file will not be promoted, otherwise, it will be on closing of this nom.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lomatium
Nominator
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Delisted --wadester16 | Talk→ 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cathédrale de Nantes[edit]

The nave of Nantes cathedral
Reason
Procedural: Part of a set of awkward promotions where a majority was inf avour of promoting, but problems were identified, and the consensus was overruled. If the consensus is for delisting - defined as strict 66% supermajority to delist - then the file will not be promoted, otherwise, it will be on closing of this nom.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nave of Nantes cathedral
Nominator
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
  • NeutralShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment note this one may require an edit in order to fix perspective distortion.
  • Delist Not FP quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Per Makeem, inappropriate to have promoted this. --Fir0002 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist I don't want my pictures to be listed in this project. Oh, but maybe should I just vote as "keep" and close the delist nomination as "kept"? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the procedures here. --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. How many times do we have to vote on these things? --jjron (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist probably again and again until fair promotion. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Noodle snacks. wadester16 | Talk→ 22:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per above -- matt3591 TC 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and my oppose vote in the original nom. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist It does have RG speckling on the ceiling. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --ZooFari 22:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dry Tortugas Light[edit]

The Dry Tortugas Light, on Loggerhead Key in the Florida Keys, was constructed between 1856 and 1858 to replace the Garden Key Light as the major seacoast light for the Dry Tortugas. The tower walls are six feet thick at the base, tapering to four feet thick at the top, and the light is shown 157 ft above the water; a radio room is attached to the base. The lighthouse was automated in 1988. Its beacon can be seen to 28 miles at sea.
Reason
Procedural: Part of a set of awkward promotions where a majority was inf avour of promoting, but problems were identified, and the consensus was overruled. If the consensus is for delisting - defined as strict 66% supermajority to delist - then the file will not be promoted, otherwise, it will be on closing of this nom.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dry Tortugas Light
Nominator
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
  • NeutralShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Not FP quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Per Makeem, inappropriate to have promoted this. --Fir0002 10:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per the obvious. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. These relistings are turning the project into a mockery. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Jjron. wadester16 | Talk→ 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and as per oppose vote in original nomination. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hang on guys:
    • Small file size given resolution - check
    • Not sharp at full resolution - check
    • Much of the picture is low-contrast - check (redeeming against the file size argument)
    • Maximum image dimensions are 2 x what's required (redeeming against sharpness argument)
    • So where are these artefacts, then? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Keep It seems that compression quality is 93 ("percent"), which should be plenty. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • FWIW I personally don't find the artifacts that bad either (they are there, probably worst around the treeline, but not enough for me to oppose on alone). There's a little noise, again not much I'd complain about. The main weaknesses I find are the poor sharpness and horizontal composition (could be improved with a crop). I didn't vote first time it was nommed because while I generally like the picture, I found the weaknesses overall too significant. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment A question for you, as this was my first FP nom ever: once this vote has closed, would it be worth perhaps renominating the image? Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm willing to consider a crop if people think it would help the picture pass muster. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I start by apologising to you - this nomination has got caught up with a few others in a turmoil re FPC closures, which is a bit unfortunate and not something I would have liked to see. Re the picture, personally I think you'd have to get a higher res version of it, and edit off that. One issue is that now degradation is evident, further editing including a crop will exacerbate it. Unfortunately I don't think you're the creator, so perhaps finding a higher res version or the full res original won't be possible. If you could get a higher res/quality version I would be happy to help with the editing (depending on your own proficiency in this area of course). Otherwise, as I said above, I generally like the image, but found the quality of the current version a bit low. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words - no apologies necessary. (Though I've never nominated, I've followed WP:FPC on and off for quite a while - I know that this is something of an unusual circumstance. No worries. :-) ) I'm not sure if it would be possible to find an original, higher-res version of this image, but I'll do some digging. If I can find one we'll go from there.
Many thanks for your advice! --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delisted I know I voted in this, but consensus is quite clear and we're coming on a month... --wadester16 05:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Huntsman spider[edit]

Huntsman spider
Reason
Low resolution, very little detail for something so large, looks artificially placed.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Huntsman spider.jpg
Previous nominator notified
YesY [14]
Nominator
Muhammad(talk)
  • DelistMuhammad(talk) 05:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Agreed, no longer of sufficient quality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. This is a very common species in Australia and NZ, not difficult to reproduce. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't imagine this would pass today. Plus, it looks awkwardly punched out of the background. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Meets minimum size requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Delisted Consensus seems clear. --wadester16 05:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Zorak-Mantis.png[edit]

A green mantis, I suppose.
Reason
Bad artifacts, png that should be jpeg, no longer meets size requirement.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zorak-Mantis.png
Previous nominator notified
YesY [15]
Nominator
ZooFari
  • DelistZooFari 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom --Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Did you inform the original nominator? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Woops, I forgot. I will do that right away. ZooFari 21:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist This isn't an easy delist; parts are in focus and it has enc value. But unfortunately it's cut off and too small.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Small, messy background.--ragesoss (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --wadester16 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dscn3200-2-butterflies.jpg[edit]

Two butterflies...
Reason
Too soft, low quality, unsharpened, blurred, tilted, and I think you know everything else...
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/two-butterflies
Previous nominator informed
YesY [16]
Nominator
ZooFari
  • DelistZooFari 03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delist Slightly soft and small. --Muhammad(talk) 04:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it (and perhaps adjust contrast). ZooFari 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • comment - since this is my pic I won't make the obvious vote. But I very strongly disagree with "It would be a pleasure if we can get someone to sharpen it". If you don't mind faking these things, why not go the whole hog and use photoshop to mirror a butterfly - so much easier? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • May I ask why you disagree? I made a simple note for the image to be improved, and I get back a complain. I don't restore anymore, and I don't see a problem with that. ZooFari 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Meets minimum size requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Commentthe original is very sharp it is really just a resizing problem because the detail is too fine for the thimbnail. --BozMo talk 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not excellent on the criteria here, so please weight my comment appropriately, but the sharpness in the actual image here is significantly better than in the thumbnail. If the criteria say that the thumbnail and not the image itself has to meet a strong sharpness crtierion, then that seems rather daft to me. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviews should be based on full size, not thumbnail. wadester16 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment While I wasn't judging to a thumbnail, it is still soft and underexposed. ZooFari 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Heavy JPEG artifacting, underexposed, flat lighting, full resolution image is rather soft. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Soft, composition and detail not of current standards. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist - Too blurry. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delisted Seems as if this one goes... --wadester16 16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Romanian haystack[edit]

Current FP: A traditional Romanian haystack
Proposed replacement: Larger, sharper.
Reason
A better version is available
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Traditional hay stack, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Romanian hay.jpg
Nominator
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
  • Delist and replaceShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace obviously. Time3000 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist and replace The replacement is a clear improvement, but the larger size brings out some of the flaws of the original picture. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist--Avala (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Cut-off, would probably not be featured today. --Muhammad(talk) 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Ditto Muhammad. wadester16 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Not good quality. Dogposter 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: Neither is very good. Maedin\talk 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delisted (for the record I was going to close this yesterday as a 'delist and replace', but two new comments tilt the balance to a clear delist; since we're following no time limits, I've accepted them, but I'm open to differing opinions; if so, comment below) --jjron (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Arizona cap canal.jpg[edit]

A section of the Central Arizona Project in the desert
Reason
A good and encyclopedic picture, but fails at least two FP criteria:
  • It is of a moderate, not high, technical standard: the image is either somewhat grainy (it's hard to see against the desert background but is readily visible against the blue sky background at the top) or has compression artifacts (for example, at 525,20), has what seem to be areas of discoloration (light streak near 470,320 and gray spot at 625,680) and white spots (at 95,430; 575,300; 385,85), and has various streaks (most clearly visible in the upper one-fifth of the image).
  • At 664 × 830 pixels, it is not of sufficiently high resolution.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2004#Aerial photo - Central Arizona Project
Nominator
BLACK FALCON (TALK)
  • Delist — –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Small, not very detailed, not great quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Time3000 (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Size matters, and this is neither unique not high-quality enough to consider overlooking that problem. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 201 FCs served 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per those above Staxringold talkcontribs 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment a shame really I remember this image on the main page really caught my attention, I had no idea this massive irrigation network even exists. It's pretty unique too, I mean, who is going to hire a flight over an aqueduct just to take a sharp, high resolution image of it? I guess it's not as classy as a head of cabbage. Is this part of a large scale plan to delist anything which met the requirements at the time but is not up to current standard? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There has been some considerable discussion about this re-evaluating of older images on current standards before - some are strongly against it, some rather for it, and many evaluate on a case by case basis. In this case given Black Falcon isn't exactly an FPC regular I don't think you could say it's 'part of a plan', but indirectly it does tend to be gradually happening. You're always welcome to express your opinion in terms of a 'Keep' vote. --jjron (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • There may be a gradual movement toward re-evaluating old FPs, as jjron notes, but as this is my first foray into FPC, I am unaware of any short- or long-term plans that may or may not be in place or under discussion.
      I agree that it's unlikely that any Wikipedia editor will take a better image, at least in the near future; however, it is quite a bit more likely that the same government agency that took this picture, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, has already produced or will produce another photo of the Central Arizona Project. More generally, I think that changes in FP standards—for better or for worse, it depends on one's perspective—come naturally as Wikipedia evolves. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In that case, Keep on the grounds that it met the technical standards at the time, has considerable EV for the subject, is unlikely to be re-produced by a wikipedian and no government made alternative (which is suspected to exist) has been presented to take its place. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. MER-C 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin.jpg[edit]

File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin.jpg
Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin
Reason
Deleted file for copyvio. File already deleted.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin
Nominator
jjron (talk)
  • Already deletedjjron (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Red sunset[edit]

Original Caption: A red sunset near Swifts Creek, Australia.
Reason
This image no longer appears in any articles, while it is pretty it has not EV to speak of (unless someone can find a genuine example of where it belongs and contributes to an article)
Previous nomination/s
Original Nomination also, this was used on a few occasions to block other sunset noms citing it as an existing example.
Nominator
Cowtowner
  • Delist — Cowtowner 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist --Avala (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist there are much better sunsets out there. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. No articles, little encyclopedic value, not up to the standards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cacophony (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delisto - and perhaps move as FP to commons. - Damërung . -- 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range[edit]

A bronco and rider.
Reason
While there are issues with quality, such that I don't think this would pass under today's standards, the most outstanding issue is that this is no longer in any articles, and as such is not eligible for a FP listing.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plunging bronco, Bar Diamond Bar range.jpg
Nominator
Mostlyharmless (talk)
  • DelistMostlyharmless (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist --Avala (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Not great quality, not used in any articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Ha! Good catch, Makeemlighter! upstateNYer 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that was in the reason up above, but thanks anyway :P Makeemlighter (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Thunder Cloud[edit]

A rolling thunderstorm (Cumulonimbus arcus)
Alt 1 1,578 × 1,048 (slightly more reddish)
Alt 2 1,000 × 664 (originally proposed here)
Reason
This image doesn't seem to be even close to any featured quality anymore. Valuable and encyclopedic surely, because I have not seen images that capture the roll quite as dramatic as this image does with it's angle, but definitely no longer up to the current standards.
Previous nomination/s
Nominator
TheDJ (talkcontribs)
  • Delist — —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't have the time before to check for previous listings, but I just did, and it sure is a contentious one. Found 4 previous nominations for delist. I think it is obvious that it is a very impressive image that would be hard to reproduce, and I think it would be great for Wikipedia:Valued pictures, and above all, I really am no big supporter of delisting older FP images in general, but...... I still support my delist nomination, partly due to the existence of VPICS now. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. And it happens not to be a rolling thunder cloud, but a shelf cloud. --Dschwen 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Low resolution, poor quality, indifferent composition. Time3000 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The passage of time suggests that this image is not easily reproducible. It also seems to be correctly labelled in all but the file name (and the technical reasons for that seem to persist, on Commons). It was already not up to "standards" at previous three nominations, so I'd hope that someone can explain what's changed to deserve changing the consensus. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per Time --Muhammad(talk) 07:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep — actually it does meet the current standards: "Exceptions to this rule [min. 1000px] may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired" — I'd say this image fits this criteria. Diego_pmc Talk 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think it does. I know it isn't made very clear, but I would interpret it to refer only to subjects that one could not aquire higher resolution images of, not to individual images. In other words, we might not be able to get a higher resolution image of this specific picture, but we can find another similar photo of the subject in higher resolution. That means it is not unique and therefore not covered by that caviat IMO. If nobody objects, it is probably worth changing the wording to reflect this nuance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, per nom. That exception doesn't apply here - this is eminently reproducible. These storms are not one-off events, or consigned to history. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is to say, that WP:FPC does not lower the bar simply because something is rare. It needs to be significantly so, and no evidence has been provided that these are (no shots is not that evidence - there are plenty of things we only have one shot of on Wikimedia projects) Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And oppose possible replacement versions. Neither is of FPC standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:30, 29 Septem