Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Pied kingfisher.jpg

Delist: Pied kingfisher[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 14:48:41 (UTC)

Reason: not used and not as good as images in article pied kingfisher
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pied Kingfisher
Nominator: Charlesjsharp (talk)

Delist — Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - gender and subspecies not identified, unused. While this doesn't have the same information as the existing FP File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) female.jpg, it does have the same information as some of the other pictures in the article. The lack of gender and subspecies identification make it difficult to pick out which image replaced this one. P.S. did you notify the nominator and photographer? MER-C 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

notifed photographer. --Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I was notified. Checking criteria for delisting, I don't mind if image becomes obsolete at some point: agree that something that was good at 2013 may become upgraded with better one at 2019 Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on the reference desk about the subspecies and gender. The image was taken in Israel, and if this is C. r. syriacus then the image can be reinserted. MER-C 13:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted the image in the English Wikipedia article with sex and subspecies identified MER-C Artemy Voikhansky Mattximus Bammesk. Still recommend delist as FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - now that the primary motivation for delisting has been addressed, I don't think this image's use by date has been reached. MER-C 17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a photographer behind the image, I'd refrain from expressing an opinion on the matter as I might be not as neutral as I'm expected to be. I'll leave this on the community. Artemy Voikhansky (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Procedural since its not in any article. Mattximus (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This has a better composition than other images in the article, IMO. I would like to see it stay in the article. True it has less resolution than the other FP, but it is a better depiction of the bird's body, tail, overall proportions. This is a comment, not a vote. Bammesk (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image is now in a gallery. I think use in a gallery usually means not significant encyclopedic value, plus there is a FP in the infobox. On the other hand, this is the only depiction of that subspecies and the composition is a clear depiction of the full bird. I am neutral on this nom. Bammesk (talk)

A sidenote (my opinion) about nominating subspecies that appear only in a gallery: I see sufficient EV if the nom has at least 2 images (i.e. a set, of 2 subspecies), in which case the nom is an automatic depiction of subspecies variation; or if there is sufficient text in the article describing the particular (the nominated) subspecies. Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep it is in the article. Tomer T (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]