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:

Pin tumbler locks[edit]

Old raster images
New vector images
With no key
With bad key
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
  • 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.
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
  • 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.
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
ωαdεstεr16kiss mei'm Irish

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

Walt Disney Concert Hall[edit]

Original FP
Proposed replacement
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
  • 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
Nice enough, but zero enc because of the crop, and resolution is lacking
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/BlueMorningGloryClose.jpg
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
Bad Lighting, low res, very little in focus
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hebe x franciscana.jpg
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)
Not sharp, low res, no contrast
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2004
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
Not used in any articles, didn't really ever have enc in Denver
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Denver Lightning.jpg
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
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)
  • 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)
Clearly not up to scratch quality wise.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004
Noodle snacks (talk)

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

Meadow Argus[edit]

Meadow Argus (Junonia villida)
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
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
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

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.
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
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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

Cathédrale de Nantes[edit]

The nave of Nantes cathedral
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
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.
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
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
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 [1]
  • 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)


A green mantis, I suppose.
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 [2]
  • 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)

Adonis Blue butterflies.jpg[edit]

Two butterflies...
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 [3]
  • 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.
A better version is available
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Traditional hay stack, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Romanian hay.jpg
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
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
  • 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
Deleted file for copyvio. File already deleted.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin
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.
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.
  • 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.
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
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)
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
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 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Diego_pmc --Avala (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Cool, but far too small. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist To small and very replaceable. upstateNYer 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I find this image to be an exceptionally striking image of a shelf cloud especially when compared to all of the other images in the Wikipedia article. Also, doing a google image search came up with few examples that can compare to the one we have. I would be happy to delist for something better and I understand that something that reproducible in nature doesn't come to the same level as our reason for keeping File:Bison skull pile, ca1870.png featured which is why I put 'weak' but I think the same general rule of rarity applies. gren グレン 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Until we have better. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that we do have better, in this Featured Picture here - File:Shelf cloud pano oct07 ver4.jpg. They both illustrate arcus shelf clouds, just in slightly different lighting (and the second appears to be carrying more rain). Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And we don´t have to keep a bad one just to find a new version. - Damërung . -- 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact that no version of even half-comparible quality - the suggested replacement in no way illustrates the phenomena as well - is a good sign that we should ignore the minor technical flaws, as an irreplacable image. If it can be demonstrated this is not irreplacable, we can remove it then. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 13:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think that demonstration is necessary - it is self-evident that it is replaceable given that it is not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Why should we have different standards for existing FPs than we have for new ones? It doesn't make any sense to. Diliff (Talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I kind of semi-agree with both. Being remplaceable or not is not part of the criteria, however, a non-remplaceable one may hold a strong value for that, so I think in those cases is up to consensus. But I still oppose in this case because of the low resolution and artifacting (which I consider to be stronger than the uniquity (in this case)). - Damërung . -- 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Everyone reading or participating in this discuccions should have a look at Arcus cloud. Arcus clouds are very often thunder clouds. There's confusion here, where it seems that people thing that an arcus cloud being a thunder cloud is a rare thing. It is not. Not only that, arcus shelf clouds happen all the time. We not only have more than one picture of an arcus shelf cloud, we have two featured pictures. If that is 'not replaceable', then every image on Wikipedia is 'not replaceable. I don't think the argument is even weakly true. A high quality image of a Morning glory cloud on the other hand... Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't agree with the 'keep until we have better' argument at all. We have standards because they are our standards. The exception has always been historical images where there is absolutely no chance that a better image will ever be available, simply because it won't happen again. For all other images, I don't see why we should wait. If it no longer meets the standards, it is not FP quality. End of story. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — I added two versions of this image that I found on Commons. The resolution is a lot higher, but the color balance is a little different in alt 1. Diego_pmc Talk 20:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The alternates are certainly ... bigger. But other than in size, I think they're inferior to the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist - Low resolution for the original, and image noise for the alts. - Damërung . -- 05:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think due to the striking and fairly rare cloud formation replacing this image would be difficult if not impossible. Cloud formations like this are not common. The fact that it has survived 5 delisting attempts and not been removed yet testifies that this kind of image is not easily replaced and has strong value. Yes it's very poor quality and doesn't match current standards which is a shame. But it still remains a striking image of that type of cloud system. Unless a better image that illustrates that in the same way comes arround it should stay in my opinion. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: We can choose to keep or promote images based on their value alone; until that ethos is adopted here, its expression with regards to this picture is contrary to the standards of our FP library. I do not find this image to be eligible for a suspension of our usual criteria. Maedin\talk 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Those alternates are not truly in higher resolution- they just stretch the original image, which actually makes the full picture look terrible. -- mcshadypl TC 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: In addition poor resolution, it has jpeg compression artifacts. These are quite noticeable on the brown building. Keeping this would be a little bit insulting to the other images we have featured. I also think that both alternate versions are horrible. Reguiieee (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delist per my comments in the previous delist nomination. It's not like we're going to delete the image so as to "keep [it] until we have better", it's just far from the modern technical understanding of a featured picture. TodorBozhinov 14:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Blood values by mass[edit]

Reference ranges for blood tests, sorted by mass only
The mass only image is not as necessary now that it is included in a combined image with molar concentration that recently got featured status (below):
Blood values sorted by mass and molar concentration
Previous nomination/s
Mikael Häggström (talk)
  • DelistMikael Häggström (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, obviously. Superseded in articles by new one. --jjron (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist This picture has been replaced by the combined version. There's no reason to have them both featured. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Superseded. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --  Nezzadar    03:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunset with funnel clouds[edit]

Sunset with funnel clouds
Noted the delist below. This is much the same story. Only appears in Red.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cacophony (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist If only it had more EV. It has almost none at red, but I am shocked that this is the only place the photo is. _Nezzadar__ 04:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Not much EV and quality --Muhammad(talk) 18:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --ZooFari 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Seagull on sale pier[edit]

A seagull
I was chastised for removing this from the article for a FPC nomination. However Fir removed it himself not much later. It doesn't meet current standards and isn't in the article.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seagull
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nominator. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist Fine, fine, lets close this out. Really now, it's okay, and I shudder at removing something from Fir, considering his retirement, but I much prefer not having any delist candidates to have to look at.   Nezzadar    14:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Durova333 03:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist upstateNYer 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Fir's retirement was his own choice, and it doesn't mean his FPs are set in stone. Seagulls are one of the easiest and most accessible birds to photograph, and this one isn't one of the best ones anymore. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Is actually a nice image, revealing the urban environmental footprint of these very common birds :-). The image still appears in two articles [4] Elekhh (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Lists don't really count as articles in terms of EV for FPs. In fact many lists get stripped of images because they add so very little. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --ZooFari 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tasmanian Native-hen[edit]

Tasmanian Native-hen
Looking at it now it has too much contrast and the harsh sun isn't looking that good. File:Gallinula mortierii 1.jpg is a better replacement.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tasmanian Native-hen.jpg
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • DelistNoodle snacks (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks okay to me. Contrasty yes, and I couldn't say whether it's realistic looking or not, but it's still a good capture and is still used in the article. No need to delist IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Is a very nice shot, only is a bit unbalanced (composition). Looks like it is about to fall over after it just steped in a hole while watching the photographer. I like the pose of Gallinula mortierii 1 better. Elekhh (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I do agree with Ekekhh about the posture, but if that is the only problem I err on the side of Keep. Who am I to override the unanimous judgment of seven people.   Nezzadar    07:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. I actually prefer the composition here than in the other one, but I believe if an editor feels their own image no longer meets the standards then we should not stand in their way. --jjron (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Is that really how it should work? A delist nom is just the reverse process to an FPC promotion nom. Using the same logic, you could trust a nominator's judgement for promotions too, but then it wouldn't be a community consensus... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we discussed recently about my concept of nominators 'pushing their luck' with nominations. That's not necessarily wrong, but the point was in general people will err in favour of their own work, and it's up to the community to decide by consensus whether the nominator's judgement is correct. Delisting is not the same thing, in fact quite the opposite (if you're erring in favour of your own work and you still think it's not making the mark, you probably have a point). Thus if someone really feels their own work should be removed, then I do respect their opinion, especially from a reliable editor like NS. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying that NS is wrong, it's just that we all have different opinions and it's best to consider the merits of the image yourself, rather than deferring to their judgement. As much as I respect the opinion of NS like yourself, I disagree that it's below the current standards of FP and you even alluded to that yourself when you said you preferred the composition of this one. You didn't seem to so much trust his judgement as respect his wishes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Well both maybe. Yes I prefer the composition, but agree with his other comments. While I wouldn't have nominated this for delist myself, neither would I support as an FPC - by voting to keep I assume you would (and yet didn't :-) ). Thus if he no longer feels it is satisfactory then I will support his judgement on that. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
            • There are many reasons why I don't vote on every image that passes through. :-) Sometimes life gets in the way of Wikipedia... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Oh, come on...surely WP should come first ;-). --jjron (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, File:Gallinula mortierii 1.jpg is better technically. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist - the other FP is much better.--Avala (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Types of Carbon Nanotubes[edit]

3D models of three different types of single-walled carbon nanotubes.
It is technically inaccurate (for reasons discussed here), and does not present the subject in a useful way, thus failing to meet criteria 3 and 6 of the featured picture criteria.
Previous nomination/s
  • DelistJkasd 07:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I intend on making an image contrasting the types of carbon nanotubes when I have the time. For those interested in reviewing the technical details, I recommend this website which describes the different types and includes a nice java applet that depicts them. Jkasd 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist I wouldn't know about the accuracy but I do know about the composition. Really? Prismatic on black isn't good in this case. I would never have voted for this to become an FP with something like that.   Nezzadar    07:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Question if it is technically inaccurate why does it have such high placement on the articles it's on? — raeky (talk | edits) 15:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Because it's gone under the radar. Only people who notice the mistake would care, and they might not be editors.   Nezzadar    22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, most physicists and chemists probably haven't studied nanotubes enough to notice the error, and just assume that it must be right. I only noticed the mistakes because I've been modeling nanotubes on a computer for research purposes, and therefore had to learn quite a bit about their structure. Jkasd 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't the errors just be fixed, rather than a delist? Noodle snacks (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I plan on making a similar, but accurate version when I have the time. However, even if the technical errors were fixed, the image does not depict the subject usefully. For example, the prismatic colors convey no additional information, and are distracting. The black background makes this picture non-ideal for printing. The lower right (armchair) nanotube is cropped at an oblique angle which fails to highlight the symmetry of an armchair nanotube. It would be difficult to make the picture look consistent without using the same exact rendering software as User:Mstroeck. He has been aware of at least some of the mistakes for over three years [5] but has not yet fixed them. Jkasd 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm glad to see it's been removed from the articles. It's meaningless to me, despite the fact it looks pretty, and so I'm happy to defer. If this is inaccurate, it should not be a FP. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
if it isn't anywhere, should it be speedy deleted? (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted, no. Speedy Delisted, yes. Although it might get deleted if it is inaccurate. Surprised an IP was the first to suggest that. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the only reason it isn't on any articles is because I removed it from all the articles it was on after User:Raeky's comment. I'm not sure if this changes what happens or not. Jkasd 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. For technical innacuracy and poor graphics (irrelevant colours, black background) .Elekhh (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Cherry Trees Edited Photo[edit]

Sakura (Japanese cherry trees)
massive digital editing, to the point where it is obviously an unrealistic representation of the tree. Author explains process at the image's file page. Also, technically illegal promotion becuase while there was support consensus, it was promoted by the image creator. Finally, questionable EV on the articles where it is placed.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magical Sakura
Nezzadar [SPEAK]
  • DelistNezzadar [SPEAK] 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just on the "technically illegal promotion" aspect, the generally accepted notion that creator/nominator/voter shouldn't close (note that it's not actually a rule as such even now) didn't really exist back then and has only gradually evolved since as a potential COI, and nonetheless this was a non-controversial promotion. Other points are valid. --jjron (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • keep I am against delisting in the first place .,, it is like rerwriting history. GerardM (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Then you should abstain, as your voting skews the process. I don't think "I don't like the process" holds up that well anyways. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Clearly doesn't meet FPC - particularly point 9 digital manipulation. Note: FPC was merely an incipient draft at the time of the 2005 FP promotion. Elekhh (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist This looks like an example of HDR just going wrong.-- mcshadypl TC 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist we have a HUGE amount of Sakura images at Commons, 334 in that catagory at this time, there is plenty that would better illustrate Sakura than this stylized image. This has no EV for Sakura and it's not a remarkable or anyway great digital manipulation to give it EV for creative photography or digital editing. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Clearly too manipulated. Gerard, the list of featured pictures is not static. You could just as easily argue that we should not feature any new pictures because doing so 're-writes history' too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster at night[edit]

Palace of Westminster at night
The image is not high resolution and is somewhat poor quality. Not enough on its own for delisting, perhaps, but has also been superseded by a superior FP, with an almost identical aspect: File:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Palace of Westminster
Articles this image appears in
none (was in Westminster and British people until I swapped with the better image yesterday)
  • DelistMaedin\talk 07:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Wasn't a bad image, but it inspired me to improve on it and is no longer really the best that wiki has to offer. I think it's unlikely that it would pass on its own merits now, and there's no point in duplication of FPs. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom; it chops off the left end of the subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom; Elekhh (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Caspian blue 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Large bonfire[edit]

Large bonfire, (800 × 533 pixels, file size: 129 KB)
2004 promotion, below current specs.
Previous nomination/s
  • DelistDurova369 17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist - Good EV, poor quality. I really hate to do this, but it's not at current standards. ceranthor 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist We're bound to have something better by now to illustrate a bonfire. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: Not FP quality, no mitigating reason to ignore criteria. Maedin\talk 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Poor quality for a subject which is common and easy to be photographed. I don't like the crop/framing either. Elekhh (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Too small; easily replaceable. upstateNYer 06:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. As much as I hate delisting a Fir0002 image, this one just isn't up to it. I'm sure he'd understand! Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Cacophony (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Caspian blue 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Diagram[edit]

World's oceans
Alt 1 SVG version by same creator.
Has no description, so I have no idea what the projection of this map is, though I believe it is a azimuthal equidistant projection (similar to the UN emblem). That said, this projection creates a misleading size comparison as anything in the northern hemisphere is much smaller, relatively speaking, to its southern counterparts. Also, the image is not used in any articles except Common heritage of mankind, in which its use is dubious anyway. And on a side note, this really should be an SVG (if it can find an article).
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ocean map, creator and nominator notified
  • DelistupstateNYer 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: Doesn't meet size reqs either. upstateNYer 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed; thanks for the reminder. upstateNYer 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Aside from the technicalities being debated, I think that this image has huge EV. I love how it focus strictly on the bodies of water--an inverse of what your focus would be on a typical world map. Even in spite of the size, I would advise to keep this as long as the projection can be determined. -- mcshadypl TC 06:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Yes, the subject is an interesting one, and I could certainly see there being an oceanic map FP. However, this file is not the one. The labelling is poor, the scale is off and it really should be an SVG. J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed, an ideal candidate for SVG conversion. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • abstain, author It makes me sad to know this is being delisted as I think althought being simple is a very different view of the world's oceans that we normally don't see around. This is a view of the world in an azimuthal equidistant projection whose center is the antipode of urumqi, which itsef is the point of earth furthest form any ocean. The purpose is to show the map of the worls oceans as one, ignoring most landmasses. Of course it distorts asia, but it's proposital since it's the biggest landmass. Maybe wikipedia standards have risen well above this simple map, and then I welcome it as a good thing. I also uploaded a SVG version (it wasn't accepted back then) --Alexandre Van de Sande (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I planned to do a map of the worlds currents based on that map, but never did it. I Hope someone picks it up.--Alexandre Van de Sande (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Personally, I quite like the idea. I would like to see that the SVG version put up here replaced the current animation at the open of the Ocean page. Cowtowner (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Request Suspension of Delist I think that if we could pad the edges of the SVG with some empty space and make this more square, it would be a prime candidate for a transfer of FP status from one version to another. The suspension would give time for a fix of the SVG. Then we could get into the details of transfering FP status, since the SVG clearly works, and this is a high EV image. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to vote delist and replace if you'd like (might want to send this over to User:ZooFari, who is the SVG expert around here - also, you don't really need to suspend, delists go on for as long as they need to in practice), but I still don't think this is the best projection to use because it scales bodies of water in the south up and scales bodies of water in the north down so the area they take up in the diagram aren't actually comparable. upstateNYer 04:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I seriously doubt any perfect projection is possible. I'm just glad the illustrator didn't use the Boone projection. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 14:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the current nom, I don't think there is any denying that there is no perfect projection. I think the best representation for this kind of image may be the Peirce quincuncial projection for its conformity. Cowtowner (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yea, I'm not saying there is a perfect projection, only that this is far from the optimal one to compare area. upstateNYer 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Projection isn't the only issue; the inclusion and exclusion of landmasses on this map seems to me to be kind of weird and arbitrary. Where's New Zealand, for example? Spikebrennan (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
    • New zealand is where it should be, by the side of australia. Its a small patch of white, but its there --Alexandre Van de Sande (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
      • New Zealand, Indonesia, and Scandinavia are all horribly mangled. The last is arguably a function of the projection, but there isn't an excuse for the first two. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Caspian blue 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Map of Han Dynasty[edit]

Map of the world according to the Han Dynasty
Replacement: bigger and with brighter colors
For one, doesn't meet size requirements. Additionally, quality is not up to par: text isn't smooth (look like they were copy+pasted from a photocopy or something, if that were possible), text is really small, and in my opinion, the colors are not good for a map (way to dark; hard to read the text in many areas).
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Han foreign relations 2 CE, creator and nominator informed
  • Delist and do not replaceupstateNYer 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the reminder. :) upstateNYer 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Move for Speedy Delist Historical inaccuracy, I have three textbooks in front of me and all of them concur that the Han Dynasty does not stretch that far west. There might be some claims to that area, but it impossible to hold, and the Han avoided it. Also, image poorly done. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment, if inaccurate the most important place to go to is the articles. No need to speedy from FP but getting proper information into articles is more important. If this is representing territorial claim that's but instead should be noted. For many older civilizations there is an unclear line between ambition and actuality. gren グレン 05:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep / delist I probably won't be on again before this is over but if it is accurate then I definitely think it is worthy to be an FP since it seems to be well done and of high quality, if it is inaccurate then it definitely shouldn't be used since EV is definitely the most important factor on uploads outside of commons. Cat-five - talk 06:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Update It seems that the maps cannot agree on the true westward limits of the dynasty, textbooks, being more conservative, show it being slightly less than this, while the internet maps show more. This is because it is debatable as to how big of an impact the Great Wall had. By the way, where is the Great Wall in this image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezzadar (talkcontribs) 18:53, 12 November 2009
  • Delist in the spirit of (specifically, the non-adherence to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions (not only are the colors poorly chosen, per UpstateNYer, but they are inconsistent with Wikipedia conventions for maps of this type.) Spikebrennan (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep pending further arguments and evidence. This is a difficult delist nomination to consider, because several issues are mixed up with one another. The graphics are of a design that could just as well have been intended for printing or possibly a TV program, somewhere between National Geographic and Discovery Channel. Basing a historical schematic on a physical map is certainly impressive, while arguments about the best EV I'm sure will go both ways. The copies we received of this and its sister images (File:Qin empire 210 BCE.png File:Ming foreign relations 1580.jpg or see User:Yeu Ninje/Maps; one further map by the same author is found here [6]) are of a resolution that is insufficient for FP, but it seems highly likely to me that larger versions exist. On the other hand, I couldn't find any evidence in Yeu's communications of why he might have withheld the larger versions. It is possible that Yue is actually closer to the subject matter than some of the textbooks that have been cited above - he seems to have dealt with these matters at a university; however, his main focus is on History of banking in China, an article he started and is the main contributor to. Now, you know and I know that we can make these images any colour we want, which is much easier than delisting and renominating, so I would much prefer that if it were to remain the main complaint. Nobody has mentioned so far the fact that the image is densely referenced, something that is very rare even in FPs. It cites four books as its sources. If someone wants to bring forward more authoritative sources, you'll probably have to thrash it out among Chinese history experts. I doubt the usual FPC suspects have the expertise to settle this content debate. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Small, the colours aren't great, and having the licensing in the image is just awful (as much as I dislike people ignoring licensing requirements). There is simply no way this would pass a nomination tomorrow. If it is kept it is just another example of a double standard being applied. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think "would pass nomination tomorrow" has been the criterion we've generally used. I think the consensus criterion is more along the lines of "seriously fallen behind". As for the colors, those are easy to fix (like I said above). Nobody has actually said what colors would be required, so the legitimacy of those comments has to be called into question. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions is not even an official WP guideline. Instead, it's mostly an entirely unreferenced essay written by Yug [7], and some of the edit summaries added by others who went about copyediting his writings do not inspire confidence (e.g. "cleaning. i dont even know what that last sentence is supposed to mean"). On top of that, this map type isn't even listed there, so whether any of the remarks apply to it is seriously questionable - you'd have to pretend it's actually trying to be a map of one of those other types. If the original essay is OR, I don't know what that latter leap would be... Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Replace and delist or keep. Oppose delisting without replacement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist - poor colors, tiny text, not the best map Wikipedia has to offer. Renata (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, per Nezzadar, and the nomination statement. If the map is factually inaccurate, its encyclopedic value is severely lessened. –blurpeace (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • No evidence has been presented to establish that the secondary literature presented by Nezzadar trumps the primary literature used by the creator of the image. Nezzadar hasn't even named his "textbooks", whereas the creator has:
      • Tan Qixiang (ed.), Zhongguo lishi ditu (中国历史地图集; 1982)
      • Science and Civilisation, Vol. IV, (1954)
      • Generals of the South (1992)
      • Cambridge History of China, vol. 1, (1986)
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Caspian blue 01:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Daisy in water[edit]

Demonstration of surface tension: (1,200 × 900 pixels, file size: 61 KB)
Unsharp, too heavily compressed.
Previous nomination/s
Original promotion.[8]
  • DelistDurova369 18:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. As above and because it is easily reproducible. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Unsharp? Really? Which parts are unsharp? Only the flower in the middle should be sharp, and it looks fine to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist - Not crisp enough; unidentified. ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Short Brigade Harvester Boris & ZooFari, please have a more careful look to what you are providing opinion on. The image is illustrating surface tension (of water) not the flower. It is the only article it is in. Please judge it in that respect. It certainly has some qualities, that's why it was promoted 10+/1- back in 2004 (which was already in the 21st century). Please reconsider your comments above. Elekhh (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, which is why I said only the flower should be sharp. The difference in sharpness between the flower and the water is one of the things that makes the image so effective in illustrating surface tension. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there is some sort of misunderstanding here, as Elekhh points out, the picture illustrates surface tension. The surface tension bends the water surface around the flower. That is what makes the picture look "unsharp" there, the bent water distorts the ground below. But that is what the image is supposed to illustrate: the bending of the water. :)
    Apis (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually the insect on the pollen was what I had in mind as unsharp. That appears to result from excessive compression and/or insufficient depth of field, and occurs close enough to the water surface to be relevant. Durova369 20:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Apis. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Many other images in the article are far better in quality than this one, and much more desirable in demonstration of surface tension. This image is used in only one article and furthermore, in a gallery. With all due respect, my oppose still stands. ZooFariThank you Wikipedia! 15:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • BTW, why are links to articles never given in delist nominations? Wouldn't that be just as courteous here as in promote nominations? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I wondered that, too. It would be beneficial. Maedin\talk 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be beneficial if links to articles would appear in delist nominations, particularly in the case of missleading titles, like this one. Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • The title used here is exactly the same as the original nomination's title. It would be beneficial if reviewers checked that sort of thing before alleging that anyone is being misled. Durova369 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of that. But the original nomination did specify the article it illustrates right upfront, which makes you look differently to the image. In case of the delist nom, it was myself who was mislead at first look, hence my misreading of other reviewers comments. I did not intend in any way to suggest any bad faith by any reviewer or nominator. Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Actually I nearly retitled it surface tension, but went back to the original title out of concerns that the retitle would be criticized. Either way, 61K is an extraordinary amount of compression to accept for an image that anyone with access to water and garden flowers could duplicate. Durova369 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Delist Agree with the quality concerns. Saddens me though: this image my first introduction to FPs. upstateNYer 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, per the nominator. "61K is an extraordinary amount of compression to accept for an image that anyone with access to water and garden flowers could duplicate." Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 61 KB is the size of the image file, it's not a measure of compression? Compression in itself is not a bad thing, quite the contrary. In the case of lossy compression it can be a disadvantage if it degrades the image noticeably, but if there are no visible artefacts it's just beneficial.
    Apis (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • When an image 1200 x 900 pixels is 61 KB, that's heavily compressed. It's hard to go that far without loss of quality. Durova371 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Re: Apis, agreed, but here artifacts are very visible (typical jpeg boxes) and detrimental to image quality. As previously mentioned, sharpness is also insufficient. Thegreenj 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Any of the good photographers contributors can do better than this. This looks like a picture taken by me. Also, (don't take this as a reason for consideration of the vote) personally I don't think this illustrates well the phenomenon. To me this is more like a usual flotation. Air is traped in between the petals, the surface tension prevents the water from filling the air but thats it. Very different from floating coins or needles in which is the tension doing all the work.  franklin.vp  20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist There are better surface tension images that are featured anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Which? And why aren't any in the article which doesn't have any good clear alternative to this one? --BozMo talk 10:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment if the alternative surface tension image mentioned is File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg, allow me to strongly state that from a educational perspective the daisy picture, which clearly uses perfectly normal water is better than the paper clip image, which, due to all the cool photographic doodads, appears to have a layer of wax on top of the water, with water breaking through the wax at various apexes. If I were convincing students about surface tension, I'd go to the daisy picture over the paperclip picture, because one looks manipulated. I know nothing about the featured picture process, but I thought I'd let my two cents shine. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Surely you'd just rip out the glass and the paper clip yourself? The lighting allows you to see what the surface of the water is actually doing on that image (that was the goal). If you suppose that the paper clip image was not water it wouldn't matter either - surface tension is not just a property of water. It hasn't been manipulated at any rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep (much though I am concerned about agreeing with WMC too much of late). From a Schools Wikipedia point of view I would go for the daisy any time. (1) We have to teach aesthetics as well as science (2) the paperclip picture is very unclear scientifically (it looks like it is on a blue cushion (3) the daisy is memorable and interesting. --BozMo talk 10:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with your vote completely, but I do agree with your thoughts on this compared to the paperclip image. No offense Noodle Snacks, but I do think the flower is more memorable. Maybe we could see a replacement in the near future? :) No pressure. upstateNYer 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment like Hipocrite I know nothing of the featured picture process. But from a physics point of view, the flower image does a much better job of illustrating surface tension than the paper clip alternative. -Atmoz (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, in the paper clip it floats only due to the surface tension (the clip is clearly denser than the liquid) while in the flower it floats by Archimedes principle and the tension only helps the air between the petals not to be filled with water. Also, the problem is not so much comparing the two pictures but the fact that this one is not quite well produced.  franklin  21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The paper clip also experiences a buoyant force. But that doesn't matter. The effects of surface tension are seen at the interface between the flower and the water. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, then how is that the flower picture does a better job illustrating surface tension if all the same phenomenons are present in both? I bet no kid will think that the paper clip normally floats in water while many (and not only kids) can think the flower is floating because of that.  franklin  23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The effects of surface tension have nothing to due with whether the flower is floating or not. Surface tension can be seen in the photo because the water is higher than the edge of the flower, but the water does not flow into the flower. The paper clip image is poor because it simply looks like it is resting on a piece of blue cellophane stretched over a glass. It does not look like it's sitting directly on liquid water. -Atmoz (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Precisely what I am trying to emphasize. The problem is that the caption of the image in surface tension says until this moment the opposite. PS: Not only water have surface tension other liquids can also have strong surface tension and solids are quite good at that. 01:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A funny example is this. Put a dumbbell on top of a table made out of glass. That's and example of surface tension! Even more, according to some definitions glass is considered liquid. Then that would be an striking example of surface tension in a liquid.  franklin  01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I concurr with Atmoz, BozMo and Hipocrite that the image has qualities which none of the other images in the article have, and therefor it cannot be said that is a less good illustration of surface tension and would lack EV. Consequently, I think it should be moved into the main space of the article rather than keeping it at the end of a gallery. Elekhh (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you say it can not be said that it is a less good illustration of surface tension? Actually it can. The effect of the surface tension is not isolated there. Unlike in the one with the dew on the leaf, the ones with paper clips, the several diagrams, the one with the insects, the one with the minimal surface, the one with the coin, with the hand in the flow. In this one the tension is only keeping the water out of the petals. It is the same reason why a sponge floats. It is even possible that even removing that air the flower still floats. In living vegetables, unlike in living animals, most of the cells are dead and in many cases that space is filled with air. Thats why most woods float(see Xylem). But really the main sin is not that but not being in focus while it is not such a complicated picture to reproduce.  franklin  22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed alternative File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg is totally unsuitable to the purpose at hand. It looks like the paperclip is suspended on blue plastic wrap (or maybe wax). Perhaps the paperclip image is better in some absolute technical sense, but it's utterly abysmal as an illustration of surface tension. I wouldn't dare show it to my students -- it would confuse the daylights out of them and I'd have to spend the next five minutes explaining that surface tension doesn't really work like the picture suggests. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The paper clip was never really proposed as alternative. I would like to know also what is that way in which the surface tension doesn't really work as it is doing in the paper clip case? I would be cautious also showing the flower to students because you would have to expend the 5 min then to explain that the flotation is not really due to surface tension there.  franklin  23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Point of order The paperclip image is not being suggested as an alternative. It is already featured in its own right. The conversations above revolve around which image depicts the concept of surface tension better, which is, essentially, an off-topic discussion. The daisy will remain in the article upon delisting (if that's how this goes); it will not be removed, it will only lose its featured status. Closer, please take note of this comment. Thank you much! upstateNYer 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist not good enough for the current FP standard, not sharp enough, dusty, low educational value (crammed in the gallery with bunch of much better images) --Caspian blue 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Grainy, flower is out of focus. Although the picture has moderate EV, Its not enough to keep it a FP. Tim1337 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Boeing 720 Controlled Impact Demonstration[edit]

Controlled impact demonstration
image is of poor quality, crop is poor, and uncropped image exists as well. Considering the cameras NASA has, this is a terrible shot.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CID post-impact 1.jpg
Nezzadar [SPEAK]
  • DelistNezzadar [SPEAK] 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support based on the success of lack thereof of the current nomination. As stated there, the cameras NASA had at the time are likely not equal to the ones they have now. Also, they don't go smashing up jumbo jets on a regular basis, so the difficulty of reproduction compensates, in my view, for these technical short comings.
Edit history indicates above unsigned statement made by Cowtowner.
Umm, is that conditional keep or conditional delist? Nezzadar [SPEAK] 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I intended that to be a conditional support of the delist. However it's now a delist. Cowtowner (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep-not so bad as the nominator says.--Avala (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist; Crop is very unfortunate. Uncropped image or less cropped image is much better as it reveals the context (i.e. demonstartion rather than real accident)
    Elekhh (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The crop is definitely unfortunate, I would be in favor of delisting the crop if the uncropped was promoted. This is a controlled crash test done in 1984, so I don't buy the "nasa has better cameras" crap, for the cost of one of these jets and to setup a test like this this would of been the best high-speed camera setup around in 1984. Probably best not to be injecting your POV that you think nasa had better cameras at this time but decided not to waste them on a mega-exensive test like this, because that is all it is, your opinion, not backed up by any facts. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Delist Since we've prompted another version of this, this crop can be delisted. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Avala — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:08, 13 November 2009
  • Question Can someone explain how a blocked IP address voted here? Nezzadar [SPEAK] 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please log in to vote. --jjron (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Redundant image now that array is featured. This makes five delist votes, so can we move this one along now... --jjron (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per jjron. Time3000 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lunar libration[edit]

Libration of the Moon promoted in 2005; higher res version was promoted last week
A new version of this was promoted last week (File:Lunar libration with phase Oct 2007.gif) - higher res & quality. During the nom no one seemed to notice this existing version, however it seems unnecessary to feature both. Have already discussed this with the creator.
Previous nomination/s
Original nom: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Libration of the Moon
jjron (talk)
  • Delistjjron (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist agreed. upstateNYer 15:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist: Makes sense. Maedin\talk 11:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Agreed. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Aloe aristata[edit]

Aloe aristata
harsh light and poor framing
Articles this image appears in
Aloe aristata, Aloe (gallery)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aloe aristata.jpg
  • DelistMaedin\talk 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Avenue (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Jujutacular T · C 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, really not up to current standards. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, but it's not about "current standards": overexosure was always overexposure. Elekhh (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Fletcher (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Violating image: CSA states evolution delisting[edit]

Animated map/timeline of the territorial evolution of the Confederate States of America, from first secession to end of Reconstruction. Animation has been turned off as per Wikipedia policy
Wikipedia used to follow Moore's law and allowed large detailed animated gifs to be uploaded to various wiki projects. However in April of 2010 this Village Pump ruling decreed that large animated gifs will no longer be allowed as some people now view wikipedia on mobile phone browsers that have difficulty looking at images. Since this ruling has taken affect the image is no longer animated on Wikipedia and only shows the first frame. As such since it can't be used on Wikipedia and it should be delisted.
Articles this image appears in


Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CSA states evolution.gif
Esemono (talk)
  • DelistEsemono (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks like the stronger reason for delisting is that it's not used in main space. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes; it was removed from Confederate States of America in August 2008, apparently due to unaddressed accuracy concerns (diff), so there might be other reasons for delisting. But the removal alone is enough. --Avenue (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there I’ve been active on these old, archived Village Pump discussions and am not aware of a “decision” that said animated GIFs over the 12.5 MP limit “will no longer be allowed”. It is a convoluted thread there and a “decision” might be buried in there, but I can’t find it.

As far as I know, this is a temporary bug being worked on. This technical issue with animations is a complex matter pertaining to the way Wikipedia’s server engines scale animations. This particular animation is only 260,560 bytes and has only 42 frames. Note that I didn’t make it, but am expert on animations and see that the author A) did a magnificent job making it compact, and B) had the misfortune of making it higher resolution than would ever be used on a page and, thus, it always needs scaling.

This need for scaling never used to be a problem. However, a developer recently “threw a software switch” to handle this scaling on Wikipedia (instead of offloading the task to browsers). This was because of our category pages, some of which have hundreds of thumbnails. Offloading such a huge number of animations to scale to browsers was burdening them and increasing their RAM requirements. Unfortunately, because of the current (very simplistic) software sever tools being used after the change, scaled versions of otherwise exceedingly compact animations are causing problems for Wikipedia’s servers. We need better software and this sort of stuff comes from volunteer programmers; big updates don’t come fast.

It seems that this Commons category (titled “Animated gifs violating 12.5MP rule”) was created by the nominator here (Esemono). Note the “violating” and “rule” in the title. But, as far as I can tell, the developers working on this problem would call this issue an active “bug”; something they are trying to fix.

I’ve gone to Village Pump, (here, where the issue is still being worked), to clarify this. In the mean time, Esemono, please provide a more specific link or quote a relevant passage from the Village Pump archive that looks like a “ruling”, “decree”, and “will no longer be allowed” and doesn’t instead look like a bunch of efforts to develop a long-term solution. For that matter, would you mind pointing out where, on the current Village Pump discussions, it appears to you that developers are not working hard on this bug. If there was to be a “ruling”, “decision”, or “decree”, I should think there would have been a wider RfC on this issue and I’m not seeing it yet.

In the mean time, I would certainly suggest that the FP community not be voting to delist these otherwise fine animations just because they currently don’t work; not until it is clear that the developers have thrown up their hands and declared defeat. As far as I know, they are actively working hard at a solution to this. Greg L (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I can always take this animation, shrink it to the size it is typically used in articles, and create a version that requires no scaling. We can then have a vote here to replace it with the updated version—not delist it as an FP. Before we do that though, I suggest we throttle back, allow our jets to cool, and see where the developers think they are going. Very recently, I suggested they consider biting the bullet and adding the capability of doing what I described here on-the-fly by the server software. Greg L (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The size displayed in the thread is the size typically used in articles. These image would never be approved again at thumbnail size as the legends and all labels are unreadable. -- Esemono (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

EDITED CONVERSATION OF THIS THREAD[9]: The changes were explicitly made to avoid the crashing of the scale routines of the servers. I doubt the deployment of GIF scaling will be reverted yet again. We don't allow PNG images of 12 million pixels, and now we don't allow GIF images of over 12 million pixels either. I suggest we focus on finding ways to better deal with these large GIFs, but honestly, any animated GIF of this size, should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never have been? According to whom? My large animated images have been featured for years, and have been located in articles. There is a use, sometimes, for making a large animated image. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For the origin of the 12.5 megapixel limit, see -- I guess it's a tradition by now... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow. That's 4.5 years ago. From the Moore's Law article it's unclear to me whether that is two or three doublings of RAM memory storage, but that would mean an equivalent limit today should be 50 million to 100 million pixels. This would allow an animation 1.6 to 3.2 times larger than the one in the example above. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt my Sony Ericsson phone browser is that smart. And Safari 3 and earlier was terrible with larger animated GIFs. In general, it is good to assume the worst, because browsers have behaved like that. And especially if you have 200 of those full sized images in a Category page, safeguards are probably wise. Hell, ImageMagick doesn't even work frame by frame apparently, so if the problem exists there, it is likely to occur in client implementations. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Esemono: Are those discussions and musings of individuals what you consider to be a “ruling” or “decree”??? For God’s sake. You created a category titled “Animated gifs violating 12.5MP rule” when in fact, there is no such “rule.” The developers are currently working to fix this problem. Even if they ultimately decide there is no technical fix on the horizon, the better alternative to your nominating individual animations to be stripped of their FP status would be to alert the contributors who made these animations in the first place and ask them to upload a smaller one that requires no scaling. The beauty of that is all these animations would instantly start working again in every article that uses them. Greg L (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • User:TheDJ's word is God and is final; nothing can change his mind. I truly hope you're right, and TheDJ can be convinced to reverse his ruling, as alot of the images in the 12.5 violation category are my animated gifs which no longer work. -- Esemono (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You don’t understand what User:TheDJ was saying. As for his “word is God and is final”, even Jimbo, Wikipedia’s founder, has no such powers. I trust you were joking on that bit. As for 250 pixels being the placed size, no. Clearly, this animation works fine at 400 pixels, which happens to be one of the default sizes when making those click-to-play Theora animations. Do you really think the developers (who are volunteers) have the power to tell the community that they will have to just go back and delete a pile of content (all those animations that are currently frozen)?? Because User:TheD says so(?)—which he didn’t. Even if he did say what you think he said, Wikipedia simply does not work that way. Just drop this please; you don’t seem to appreciate what is really going on with this issue. Let the developers do their thing. I expect a fix will come along soon enough. Greg L (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you need to take a big breath and calm down. Who said anything about deleting anything? The users who are voting to delist this animation are doing so because its not used in any article space a requirement for it to remain a featured image. And since User:TheDJ has deemed that, "large GIFs [over 12.5MP] any animated GIF of this size, should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been)" I doubt that is likely. -- Esemono (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Update Here is what Happy-melon stated (∆ here), on Village Pump:

This has nothing to do with any discussion, "ruling", "decree" or anything else on this pump or this community. It also has little to do with the developers; this is a sysadmin-level action. Developers are working on improving both the quality and size of the finished thumbnails, and the efficiency of the thumbnailing process. Allowing larger images to be thumbnailed will be a side-effect of that latter work. Happymelon 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In short, patience. Note that the software changes originally froze all scaled animations, including this animation of mine. I had created it at 280 pixels but found that the dithering in the 256-color pallet looked better if I scaled it slightly to 266 pixels to blend the dithering. Others who later used the animation in their articles simply copied my practice and placed it at 266 pixels. After finding out what was going on and it wasn’t gonna be a one or two-day fix, I went back and re-specified all placed instances to the native, 280-pixel width. When I later saw that it was again functioning on this usertalk page (where these animation issues were also being discussed), I restored the size to the smoother-looking 266-pixel width.

Clearly, not everything is yet working; there is still a subset class of animations that remain frozen: scaled ones in excess of 12.5 MP. But effort is being made in the background to slowly put everything back into order. Programmers and developers don’t expect us to start throwing stuff away. Just be patient, please.

Any content creator who wants to create smaller versions of their animations that require no scaling in articles—as a temporary, interim measure—is perfectly free to do so. That will have the added benefit of having Wikipedia better function as it was intended for our I.P. readership, who are, after all, the individuals we’re really creating content for in the first place. Greg L (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  • 'comment My words are an attempt at communicating the current opinion of this issue within the developer community. Per request of the system administrators, long ago, all scaling of animated gifs was disabled, because it was crashing the servers. This was highly undesirable because it can put enormous load on client browsers. There were pages over 50MB in size because of this disabling of scaling and this was resulting in browser crashes and many reports on the village pump and bugzilla. So with much effort a workaround was created so that scaling could become safe again. This scaling has limits. We do not allow PNGs over 12.5MP for the exact same reason (PNG and GIF are actually rather similar in this respect). Developers see little possibilities to significantly change those limits in the short future. Ergo this is the new status quo. I understand that people are frustrated, but please also understand that Wikipedia needs to account for many situations and that as a result of that, sometimes new problems arise. So either create a smaller version of the file or convert it to an ogg. There is no reason to delete the image, if someone develops new routines to scale GIF images the images might still become useful. We are working on optimizing the resultant filesize of thumbnails, but I see little indications that we can optimize the scaling software to handle the GIF format any better than now. (For those interested, this technical reason this is difficult is because GIF like PNG does not allow for simple random access of the file) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I’ve contacted both Happy-melon and TheDJ to clarify. Happy-melon’s post mentions “Allowing larger images to be thumbnailed will be a side-effect of that latter work.” TheDJ’s post ends with …“but I see little indications that we can optimize the scaling software to handle the GIF format any better than now.” The question I have for these two are as follows:
  1. Is it the intention of the developers to get >12.5 MP GIF animations to display when thumbnailed to a non-native size?
  2. If it is the intention, is there a reasonable expectation that a solution will be had within—say—one month?
Greg L (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Yes, very much so.
  2. Unlikely, because this is even more difficult than the previous problem and it seems that that took over 2 years to fix. I think it is more likely that at some point the 12.5MP limit will be raised a bit because system resources are available.
TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been pondering putting such images behind a play button that loads the full image, but I do not consider it likely that that will become available within at least a few months. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's important to understand the different levels of work that is going on here. Developers are software coders, who write and improve MediaWiki code, such as our media handling routines. They are the ones who are likely to drive improvements to the gif scaling and processing code. The primary task of the sysadmins is to stop the servers from melting; and to close such huge DoS vectors as a 50MB page which anyone worth their salt can slashdot/4chan to generate huge instantaneous load. The sysadmins are the ones who say "we need this limit on animated gif size to stop the image scalers from dying"; the developers are the ones who experiment and, hopefully, come up with a solution which means the limit can be increased without killing anything. If we are able to improve the efficiency (in terms of memory and CPU usage) of the scaling process, we can safely scale larger images. Equally, we want to improve the quality of the scaling process so it doesn't sometimes increase the size of files when scaling very compressed animations. But of course, "want" is not necessarily the same as "are easily able to". Happymelon 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that in order to get everyone on the same page (content creators, our I.P. readership, and the developers), that any frozen animations be replaced with a generic gray image with a link to a WP-space page (and associated talk page) explaining 1) why the animation isn’t working, 2) what an interim fix is for content creators, and 3) what the short term, mid-term, and long-term plans are.

    Right now there are Bugzillas (I just e-mailed everyone on that one) and Village Pump conversations and individual discussions on usertalk pages and cluster-pooches like this thread. Right now, we have boat-loads of content creators who are feeling like mushrooms: in the dark and fed the not-so-good stuff. I think it’s time that whoever thinks they have a handle the status quo to step up to the plate and get the pointers automatically being created on the affected animations pointing to a central venue where every confused person can go to. A central repository will be a welcome relief from the current state of affairs and, perhaps more importantly, may also bring more resources (developer-types) to the fold. Greg L (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    (*sound of crickets chirping*)

  • I would like to thank Greg L for informing me of this discussion, which has apparently been going on for a week; I, as creator of this image, was not notified. I will be able to respond more to the merits of the discussion later, but for the moment I'm merely submitting my annoyance. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note Golbez, but you added a comment on a quote from a discussion from this Village pump disscusion I just added the relevant conversation to this article for the benefit of, Greg L. I doubt TheDJ will respond to it unless you move the below and add it to the this Village pump disscusion:

Never have been? According to whom? My large animated images have been featured for years, and have been located in articles. There is a use, sometimes, for making a large animated image. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: sorry for the overlook about not notifying you about the delisting, my bad. -- Esemono (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Seeing as how I only just learned of this, and I don't know how long FPRCs last, I ask it last at least several more days for me to address the concerns and place it back on the article, which satisfies most of the delist votes. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • So according to above it was found to be inaccurate and removed from article mainspace two years ago. So you want to put it back into the same article it was removed in 2008? -- Esemono (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, once I can evaluate the issues. I have a lot on my plate and admittedly had stepped away from my animation making for quite a while, but coincidentally I started working on a new one just two days ago (a map of the history of the counties of Utah, for the FLC on that subject) so I'm kind of back in the mood. Should it have been delisted two years ago? Perhaps. But it wasn't, and I request only as much time to repair it as has been given to discussing it without my knowledge. (Also, I'm not sure I agree with the accuracy criticisms, and I'm not even sure I knew it had been removed, but again, two years is a long time, long enough to forget) --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion here, I'd like to throw in, is that the developer that brought up the 12.5mp limit for png/gif, this was 5 years ago, and even in his example a 200MP image only takes "800 megabytes of working space" in RAM. By today's standards even on home pc's thats trivial. No pc bought within the last couple years should even have to page that out and can easily accommodate 800mb in RAM for a quick operation like creating a thumbnail. As for servers in 2010, they should have up to 20x that much memory (16+gb) so 200MP should CLEARLY not be an issue anymore. Is there any MODERN response from the developers about these limits? Is these limits still in place? Because the reasoning behind them is a bit silly now given we're not in 2005 anymore. Likewise why should we capitulate to some technological limitation/roadblock. Delisting because some developer 5 years ago had an issue with file sizes is hardly something I think we should be doing. While I don't agree with the use of animated gif's anymore (simply because theres FAR better methods now a days for animation, like Flash and eventually HTML5) I think they're still a necessary evil until we're allowed to embed flash... It seems to me a bit crazy we're talking about this, when this shouldn't even be an issue for under 200MP png/gif's now a days. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but what about TheDJ assertation that 12.5MP should be banned, "any animated GIF of [over 12.5MP], should probably never be presented to users. (And never have been)" because of new phone browsers. As TheDJ states, "my Sony Ericsson phone browser [can't handle big files] And Safari 3 and earlier was terrible with larger animated GIFs." -- Esemono (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of his assertion, he does not make that decision, and I disagree with his premise, as several of mine have been presented to users. As for his phone and old browser, I'm not sure we should cater to interior or obsolete hardware or programs. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I entirely agree with regard to phone browsers; we can’t be degrading an electronic encyclopedia to accommodate the lowest-featured digital devices known to man (phones that fit into one’s pocket).

    When the animations were first frozen, many more were affected than currently are. The proper thing to have done was have an automated banner display in place of an animation frozen in its tracks. It could have been one of those little “dust broom”’ icons saying “work in progress for a few days.” Instead, we had editors re-uploading their animations in a vain attempt to get them working again. After several days, may of the animations suddenly started working. I was unusual in that I was already registered for Bugzilla. So I posted an alert, and had someone point out that there was already a Bugzilla case being worked on it. Only then did I know to wait a few more days. So I rushed around and took care of a few, easy-to-fix, stop-gap repairs in the mean time. But few other wikipedians have such facility with Wikipedia and were nothing but confused. This whole affair has the hallmarks of a cluster-f***. It has been handled like the right foot doesn’t know what the left foot is doing in the rumpus room of a kindergarden.

    It appears to me that what we now have is a volunteer developer (thanks for volunteering) pretending to speak authoritatively on behalf of precious few people on an issue by opining what he intends to do and when. There has been a galactically poor level of discussion where some developers semi-coordinate on a Bugzilla, and semi-coordinate on the Village Pump, and coordinate with each other via e-mail, and the whole time leave content providers in the dark by not doing something as simple as creating a WP-space page that frozen animations could automatically point people to. Such a central venue (a WP-space page with its associated talk page) could likely bring more volunteer developers to bear on this matter. Such simple, common-sense moves. Bafflingly, no decent and proper effort was made to alert the wikipedian community as to why our animations stopped working (as if the typical wikipedian is supposed to figure out on their own to go to Village Pump). It makes me wonder if some developers here prefer not having more chefs in the digital kitchen. That is the worse possible thing; we need to pull out the stops to highlight this issue and bring more volunteer developers into the fold. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Can I just say this ? I have been discussing GIF animations for over 2 months now with various people in various forums. I'm tired of discussing this. I will go a long way in explaining everybody how Wikipedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki work, but there are limits on how I am willing to spend my time. Complaints of Wikipedia operations can be filed at the Foundation, complaints of software capabilities can be filed in bugzilla and readily await implementation by a volunteer developer (your comments just lost you a candidate for that). If you want to find developers to fix this, go ahead and get them to join the mediawiki developer IRC channel, people will be more than willing to answer their questions about mediawiki problems. Either start doing something yourself, or stop asking me questions. There have been over 6500 software changes to the software this year, that doesn't include a few thousand changes of LAST year that were only deployed a few weeks ago. Users cannot be expected to be up to date about ALL the changes that occur, unless they subscribe to all development related discussions themselves. At times someone will post some important changes to the Village pump or in the Signpost (as these specific changes were) and that is a service, not a right. Now please leave me alone. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist as creator; after evaluating it, the effort needed to bring it up to my own now-higher standards, not just the historical less-than-accuracies (now dealt with in my own copy), means I would prefer this to be delisted so I can eventually renominate the new version on its own merits. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion going forward[edit]

  • I motion that, in the interim, there be no further FP animations nominated for delisting based on the fact that 120 pixel, gallery-size versions and scaled thumbs of our larger animations are currently frozen. The issues are not straightforward. For instance, this “NURBS” animation of mine recently won FP status. It is used in articles in its native size and works as intended in those articles. But even it doesn’t work when it is one of those little 120-pixels-wide thumbs in galleries. All these issues are being looked at by those who push bits, bytes, and nibble around with keyboards. I propose that all further technical discussions and debate on the technical aspects of this issue go back to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Perhaps in a couple of months, a clearer path forward as to what sort of animations are desirable and will have good support on Wikipedia will become clearer after some of our volunteer developers have more time with their sleeves rolled up. In this particular case, we had editors voting to delist when the contributor who created the CSA states evolution GIF hadn’t even been informed of the nomination. What we certainly need going forward is better communication amongst all concerned. It seems nothing but common sense to table FP delisting for the moment given that stripping FP status from animations isn’t a pressing crisis. Greg L (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that delisting animations solely due to the current scaling issues would be counterproductive. On the communication front, I think we should include a notification field in the delist template ({{FPCdel}}), so that it's clearer to everyone who has or hasn't been notified. Something similar is included in the WP:FAR boilerplate, for example. --Avenue (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest creating a Wikiproject for animated images. A wikiproject is the traditional way to create a community around a topic. It allows for more timely communication, too. That communication could solve a lot of problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If you know your way around wiki-procedures and wiki-red-tape, I’ll help with content, Timeshifter. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the time to coordinate this. I can help out now and then. It is not hard to start a Wikiproject. Please see:
Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project. See also:
commons:Commons:Animated image resources for workshops, labs, and users that might be interested. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Takakkaw Falls[edit]

A rainbow over Takakkaw Falls.
800x533 resolution is unacceptable for an easily replaceable image. I'm surprised it hasn't been delisted already.
Articles this image appears in
British Columbia Takakkaw Falls Rainbow
Previous nomination/s
Original Nomination, [Nomination] From two years ago, a fiasco that somehow got the image kept though is never addressed the issue of resolution and only fixed cloning errors. Let's not repeat that mistake by saying it's a pretty picture.
Cowtowner (talk)
  • DelistCowtowner (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Nothing really redeemable about this image, very low resolution, blown out highlights, etc... — raeky (talk | edits) 01:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist How did this one escape delisting for so long, this is small even by my standards and I'm usually happy to support keeping older images with smaller sizes. My personal thanks to anyone who eventually shoots a better version of this and uploads it since it's a great shot if it can be done well and at the right size. Cat-five - talk 03:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and raeky. --Avenue (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist with grief. Nice and rare photo, but sadly too small... --George Chernilevsky talk 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, per above, the major factor being low resolution. --Ephemeronium (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Jujutacular T · C 06:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1958 Corvette[edit]

A restored 1958 Corvette.
Unforuntately, there are a number of factors. Firstly, the resolution is low, though the picture is sharp. The image is also likely replaceable, despite that the car is uncommon. Secondly and likely more importantly it is no longer used in a meaningful and encyclopedic manner.
Articles this image appears in
Automotive Restoration (in a gallery), List of automobile sales by model (not meaningful, in my view)
Previous nomination/s
Cowtowner (talk)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanson Cab[edit]

A contemporary Hansom Cab.
Very, very, small resolution. Very obviously not up to current FP standards and quite replaceable.
Articles this image appears in
Carriage Hansom Cab Joseph Hansom
Previous nomination/s
Original Nomination, First Delist, Second Delist It's a miracle (maybe not a miracle, per se) that this ran the gauntlet twice. Times have changed since 04/06/07 and I don't see any way to justify continued featured status.
Cowtowner (talk)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Tagged as a featured picture by User:AndrewFlorea in November 2009. I am unable to find a discussion to promote it. I also do not believe it meets FP criteria.
Articles this image appears in
Luminol, Enzyme assay
Previous nomination/s
None (that I can find)
Jujutacular T · C
  • DelistJujutacular T · C 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist, apparently promoted entirely contrary to our procedure. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist, there should be a warning issued with this as well from an admin! — raeky (talk | edits) 12:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Second thought, this doesn't even need a delist discussion, someone just delete the tag and warn the guy... — raeky (talk | edits) 12:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist per above, I don't think it was a result of malice though - the user's first language is very probably not English. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --jjron (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. We don't need to delist what was never featured, but will put this onto the 'archived removal requests' page since this subpage now exists (btw, how did you ever find it?). --jjron (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Comparing transclusions of the FP template versus pictures listed in the thumbs. See Wikipedia_talk:FPC#FP_count. Jujutacular T · C 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I've done that before - that's a time consuming task, what inspired it? --jjron (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I noticed recently that the main page upload bot had been deleting the local file pages for FPs after its day, without restoring the tags. So I decided to check to see what kind of damage had been done. Lo and behold the three ways we have counting FPs didn't agree at all :) This case I thought I would at least list here, because you never know, with all the moves/deletions/renamings/etc. Jujutacular T · C 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty poor form, wonder what led to that. I tried to remedy errors and reconcile the counts less than a year ago as we headed into FP 2000, but I doubt I actually got it completely right. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_23#Massive_stuff-up. BTW, left the editor responsible a note; it seemed a good faith error - he's an irregular editor, and as NS said, possibly not English speaking, at least not as a first language. --jjron (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

White-faced heron[edit]

There are Juvenile and Breeding Plumage FPs for this species. I propose to delist this one in favour of the new one so that there can be a featured picture of each in the article. No single image could give the same EV.
Articles this image appears in
White-faced Heron
Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Delist and ReplaceNoodle snacks (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace If I understand you correctly, Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg is being delisted, and your proposing replace with Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 1.jpg.. the other two images (White-faced-Heron444.jpg and White faced heron03.jpg) are not part of the nomination and are just to illustrate how the new FP if passes will fit with the other 2? Slightly confusing I must say. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, that is the proposal. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. This seems sound- clearly, there is room for the three different images. Which do you intend to use in the taxobox? J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm open to suggestions. Perhaps 2 and 3. The juvenile should probably go in the body of the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That would be my choice, as well, unless the males and females have different plumage? J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace: Agree with reasoning. Maedin\talk 08:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. Yeah, makes sense, but to be honest this is a case where I don't really think this should have been a D&R. If you were replacing the breeding plumage with a better breeding plumage one, then sure, but you're replacing a breeding plumage with non-breeding, then just reinstating a different breeding plumage that's already featured to the article. Confusing for sure. Lighting on the delist nom isn't optimal, the replacement is good but should probably have been a regular nom. --jjron (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Promoted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 1.jpg
  • Delisted Image:Egretta novaehollandiae Tasmania 3.jpg

This will be treated as two separate nominations, a promotion and a delist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Birth of Venus[edit]

Cut off on the left. In other copies, such as File:La_naissance_de_Vénus.jpg, it can be seen that the foot is complete, instead of cut off. I'm a little uncomfortable with considering what is only most of a famous image as amongst the best on Wikipedia. It's also no longer used in the main article on the painting, being replaced with an edit.
Articles this image appears in
Florence, Venus (mythology)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Birth of Venus
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless a proper replacement is found in which case Delist--Iankap99 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • At the least, we should probably swap it for the edit used in the article. Though I'm still uncomfortable with it being cut off, and would rather draw a hard requirement for completeness. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, I completely agree with Adam. This would not pass today, and so it should not be kept today. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist if someone discovered the bad crop before during the nomination it likely never would of passed, so it should be delisted now since it's not accurate to the painting... — raeky (talk | edits) 13:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delist One of the most famous, most important, works of art ever and we delist it because of two inches missing off the left. Yeah, it's probably the right thing to do, but I still feel dirty about it. Unless it's specifically a "detail", the piece should be complete to be Featured. Dammit. Matt Deres (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist: Shame we don't have this complete. (P.S. I've seen this painting at the Uffizi. It's much bigger than I expected it to be!) Maedin\talk 09:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. It might be famous, but in its current state, it's only 95% famous. That's not fair to FP or Botticelli's work. Amphy (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Orlando Furioso[edit]

An illustration by Gustave Doré of Orlando Furioso
Right: Gustave Dore's Woodblocks did not have ruler-sharp borders; the border given is not original. Further, it's a bad crop: The bottom of the image is cut off, as can be seen by the signature on the left. It's watermarked - the T in the lower right - and, if I recall correctly, that means this is the same series as Divine Comedy edition of Doré's prints I had for a while, which I discovered had major and severe problems - as in, they cut off over 10% of some of the images, others were over-inked, and they clearly did not care in the least when preparing them. The oddly square shape of this one leads me to suspect that this is missing fairly substantial material from the top and bottom, as every single Doré illustration I've seen of this type [He does two types - labour-intensive plates, such as all our Doré featured pictures, and small illustrations, much less detailed, for pages between the plates] - has had the same rectangular dimensions.

I've done a lot of work with Doré. We have numerous Featured Pictures of his work now, from much better, contemporary editions. The bar's been raised far above this one's status. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles this image appears in
Orlando Furioso, Gustave Doré, Princess and dragon
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Orlando Furioso
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm glad we have an expert to tell us about these things. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, agreed. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist: Happy to rely on Adam's opinion, thanks for the research. Maedin\talk 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist — raeky (talk | edits) 02:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Jujutacular T · C 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Physical map of the Philippines[edit]

Physical map of the Philippenes
Way below current size requirements. Much higher quality is possible, would not pass today; judging from arguments used in the previous delisting debates, it seems clear that our expectations and culture, as well as explicit guidelines, have changed. It's also worth noting that this was promoted before there was any formal FP criteria or nomination process; I think it's time for this one to go.
Articles this image appears in
Geography of the Philippines, Filipino martial arts, Outline of the Philippines, Lighthouses in the Philippines
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ph physical map.png, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2006#Ph physical map.png, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2007#Physical map of the Philippines
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. I would also expect a map such as this to be in SVG, for easy future editing/translation. Jujutacular T · C 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist - I was hoping to vote keep, but the text is just far too small for the image size. Must look like it came out of one of the very early dot matrix printers if you zoomed in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist — raeky (talk | edits) 13:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist The image is simply too small. I do ask, however, why the image needs to be an SVG? Zooming in on a map provides no use to me: the amount of available detail would remain the same. Why not simply offer a high resolution PNG? I think any arguments about translation, while good for convenience, don't apply in FPC -- we often see the argument that other encyclopedias find an image valuable to be bantied around and subsequently dismissed. Cowtowner (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No- use on other projects is completely irrelevant. I will mention feature credits on other projects, but that's information rather than an argument in the image's favour. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I was referring more to Jujutacular's comment " I would also expect a map such as this to be in SVG, for easy future editing/translation." which seemed to imply their expectation of multi-project compatability. Cowtowner (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Good point about the translation, I agree that should be not be a factor for the enwiki FPC. However, SVG does allow increased flexibility for editing purposes in general (not just cross-wiki). Mostly though, I agree with the delisting per the nominator. Jujutacular T · C 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2010 at 15:08:21 (UTC)

Wolf spider foucs stack of 8 images done in Photoshop
No longer used in article.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg
  • DelistMuhammad(talk) 15:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. Superseded. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. Hive001 contact 17:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delist - hate delisting Fir's work, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. --Dschwen 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sept 2010 at 09:36:53 (UTC)

It's very pretty and everything, but we don't need two featured pictures of crepuscular rays- neither is really showing anything the other isn't. Though neither is blowing me away, the the other image has pride of place in the article, and, though lower resolution, has more of a focus on the rays themselves- this one is very landscape-based. It's not really adding anything to the other article in which it is used other than window dressing. (We also have a third FP of the rays.)
Articles this image appears in
Crepuscular rays, Black Mountain Tower
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • First question: Has the creator been contacted? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fir0002 is no longer active on Wikipedia, so no. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • You should still leave a note on his talk page. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Alright, note left. J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Just subpar by today's standards. Cowtowner (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist: Agree. Maedin\talk 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC) To clarify, delist based solely on the image's technical and resolution shortcomings, without regard to other possible FPs of the subject, which may or may not also be suitable for delisting. Maedin\talk 11:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - why delist this one? If we want to delist one, we really need to look at all three. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're able to- I linked them in the opening statement, and also explained why I nominated this one. This one has the smallest focus on the rays- the rays are only a small part of the picture; this one is more of a landscape. Additionally, this one is not given pride of place in the article, the other is- seems those who have edited the article agree that this is not the strongest illustration for the subject. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. I've looked at all three, and I think this is the best one to delist. This one is of similar quality, but shows the rays from underneath, which the other two do not, and IMO the remaining one is better than the one nominated for delisting. --Avenue (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Adam. I don't think you can single any one of them out as being any worse than the others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • And you feel all of them have strong EV? Three pictures, all showing basically the same thing in the same article can't all have FP-level value. J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • And that's not what I said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • No, it isn't, and so I'm asking you to shed some light on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The other image has rays going up; these are going down. And it is a beautiful image; it was when it was taken, it was when it was first voted upon, and it is still a beautiful and tranquil image. I think it should appear on the Main Page a second time myself. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per technical shortcomings. Jujutacular talk 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • 6-3 typically defaults to keep, but in this case, the stronger arguments in favor of delisting push the consensus that way. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Panorama of Edo[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 10:51:29 (UTC)

Proposed replacement Historic colour version.
To be delisted A panorama of Tokyo in the mid-19th century.
To be replaced with the better-stitched, photochrom colour version.
Articles this image appears in
Formerly Edo. The photochrom colour version has been used for over a year now.
Previous nomination/s
An earlier nomination for promotion of the photochrom failed because of complaints about stitching errors (minor considering the age imo). The black-and-white copy that is the current FP has even more stitching problems, so everything speaks for the replacement. Original nomination.
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk)
  • Delist and replace The failed nomination is a bit of a joke if you ask me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace It's ridiculous to have this image in the much, much worse copy as an FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, clearly- the fact the better copy recently failed should be reason enough to lose this. However, I think the fact the replacement has already failed a nom means it should have to go through the proper process again, rather than being promoted as a replacement. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. The new very is much better, but doesn't seem to be FP level to me. No idea how the original made it. Kaldari (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist only. The new version should go through a separate nomimation given it failed last time. --Avenue (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kiwi fruit[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 00:46:25 (UTC)

Original Kiwi (fruit) - hairy, usually green on the inside. If you're feeling tough, you eat the skins, too. Less than 1 negapixel.
Proposed replacement Around 11MP.
Alternative Currently placed on a different article (Actinidia deliciosa), not sure if that's a correct species ID.
Was replaced in article with higher resolution alternative, nominated here as a replacement.
Articles this image appears in
Kiwi (fruit) (formerly)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kiwi aka.jpg
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk)
  • Delist and replacePapa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe a little light? Kiwis I've seen are almost invariably a bit darker than that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep original. Delist original, do not replace with initially proposed replacement; unsure about alt. The colours in the alternative do seem odd, and the composition is worse than the original. A higher resolution doesn't outweigh these defects IMO. This all came up in its previous nominatation too. --Avenue (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The final decision always rests with article maintainers, so to speak, which may or may not mean that if we keep it and force it on the article, it will just end up in another delist nom a few months down the line. Try the alt? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, on second thought I agree with delisting the unused original, but I still don't think the proposed replacement is FP material. I've changed my !vote above accordingly. I like the other alternative more, but it seems significantly different in that it is primarily a cross-section and doesn't present a range of views of the fruit. So I'm not sure if it is appropriate to treat it as a direct replacement. I'm no expert, but I think the species attributed to it in the article is correct (not the species in the filename), and that it's probably the Hayward cultivar. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist original, no opinion on the others right now. We can't keep an image that is not in use, and it is not the job of FPC to demand that the version of the picture we like has to be used. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist original based on it not being used. I agree that the alt's composition and colour balance is slightly inferior. Maybe it's worth bringing the discussion here to the talk page of the article so that consensus can be made on which image to go for. I'd withdraw the delist vote if it could be kept. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Left a note there. With 87 watchers, there's a reasonable possibility that one or two might respond. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see the harm in delisting the original then nominating the new image for FP status the normal way. You could even run them concurrently. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Why have two open noms where one suffices? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Because, as has been demonstrated, there are some who feel we should be delisting but are less sure about replacing. D&R should be for small, uncontroversial changes- if there's any kind of sentiment that the original should be delisted, but the replacement requires discussion, it should be given that discussion at a full nom. I'm not really fussed either way, but that just seems like the most sensible thing to me. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Please note that there are 5 delist votes. Adam did not bold a vote, but he did "agree with delisting the original" - that counts in my book. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • My bad. That was Avenue. My eyes are playing tricks on me today. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and delist this regardless. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Earl Roberts[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2010 at 15:57:35 (UTC)

An image of Earl Roberts, originally mistaken for Lord Kitchener
No longer used in any articles. Should probably be reviewed, anyway, since it was mistakenly nominated as the wrong person.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lord Kitchener
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • Delist or find usesAdam Cuerden (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist unless uses can be found. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Would putting this in the Earl Roberts article satisfy the EV requirement for everyone? Cowtowner (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Which Earl Roberts is it? J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, bad link there. I believe it is this one. They look similar and his life story seems to fall in nicely. Cowtowner (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, firstly, we'd have to be certain, and, secondly, on what grounds do you feel the image would have EV there? J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's the right person. See User talk:Durova/Archive 73#LOC error: Lord Kitchener picture. And you can see that on the LOC image page they've gone and changed the description to be Lord Roberts (with credit to Durova). howcheng {chat} 01:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • It would fit into the section currently titled "Other" which deals largely with his legacy. A caption noting his fame resulted in his being used in recruitment campaigns would be encyclopedic there. Cowtowner (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Meh, I'm not wild about it. Perhaps if we had some sourced discussion of his appearance on posters, but the fact that the LOC wasn't even sure would suggest this isn't the most important or famous poster... J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • The majority of the posters we have featured aren't the most important or famous; looking through some of them and their uses, it appears that this arrangement would meet the precedent for poster EV. At the same time, many of them may be candidates for delisting if we decide that this image doesn't live up to our criteria. Cowtowner (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
                • This is a poster that happens to feature a certain person. That doesn't mean it automatically has EV in the article about that person, and I'm not really seeing any reason to believe it does otherwise. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't see why we should have a lower precedent for images that have already been promoted than for images not yet promoted- it wouldn't pass today with that as a claim of encyclopedic value. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • I know you're not a dick ;-) (I've always though we've had a pretty good working relationship on here), I'm just looking through possibilities and interpreting the criteria and precedents. Personally, in that capacity I think the image would have been promoted given the apparently low EV standards for posters. That said the fact that this was misidentified makes it a very ambiguous case. Cowtowner (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] Let's review. I'm just going to look at WWI and WWII, since I don't think it's surprising or notable that, say, a lot of theatrical shows are illustrated with a poster for that show.

WWI: All the featured posters illustrate one or more articles in a strong way:

  1. We have various ones that go in articles on the history of some military branch or country (File:Find_the_range_of_your_patriotism2.jpg, File:National_Fund_for_Welsh_Troops2.jpg, File:Canada_WWI_Victory_Bonds2.jpg/File:Canada_WWI_l'Emprunt_de_la_Victoire2.jpg, File:Trumpetcallsa.jpg, File:WWINavyYeoman1.jpg, File:Yiddish_WWI_poster2.jpg).
  2. Aspects of the war: War savings stamps (File:Joan_of_Arc_WWI_lithograph2.jpg); Australian Red Cross (File:RedCrossNursen.jpg); and, of course, one of the most famous depictions of Uncle Sam (File:Unclesamwantyou.jpg)

I have one more in the queue, which illustrates the artist's work, and the U-boat campaign File:William Allen Rogers - Only the Navy Can Stop This (WWI U.S. Navy recruitment poster).jpg


All the WWII images have as their main article ones that require to be illustrated by a poster: Nazi propaganda American propaganda during World War II, Rosie the Riveter, and Keep Calm and Carry On all have an FP.

Now, compare Earl Roberts. Unlike the other articles here, our article on the man is packed with images, and has no text at all about anything related to propaganda involving him. And I hardly think it's worth cutting out a FP-level copy of a John Singer Sergeant painting to make room for this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Adam. Further, there shouldn't be a lower EV requirement for posters- if it seems there is, it's possible some posters were promoted when they should not have been. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That was what I was getting at, though apparently not too clearly: That there seems to be a double standard for poster EV and that we may have been a little lax in those promotions. Again, just exploring options and it's looking like we're moving towards a consensus to delist. Cowtowner (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please notify the original uploader/nominator. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I brought this to Durova's attention at the end of July. I suppose she's been too busy to do anything about it. I suppose it could replace the John Singer Sargent portrait, but I'd prefer it to have more context. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Despite no usage in article space. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Circle strafing[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2010 at 22:29:29 (UTC)

Current FP Circle strafing, a technique that gives an advantage in some first-person shooting games.
Currently used replacement
Animated version used in article.
Articles this image appears in
Formerly Strafing (gaming)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/June-2004#Circlestrafing, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2006#Circlestrafing.png
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk)
  • Delist and replace by default. — Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delist, weak do not replace. Clear improvement. I would not object to the new image having to go through a nomination itself. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed per Avenue's comments. J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • delist and replace - God knows how the original passed - the animation is so much clearer and understandable whereas the original rather misses the attempt to track by the enemy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, don't replace. When it went through a removal request in 2006, some people were concerned that the people were moving too fast in the animation relative to the bullets. I agree. --Avenue (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist, prefer to also replace: Animation is superior, and it's not moving too fast. I think it would be unfortunate if it were any slower. Maedin\talk 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delist, don't replace yet If the proposed replacement was slowed down slightly, I would strongly support it as a FP. It may be good enough as it is, but it would be more effective if someone were to add a very brief pause between the frames. -- mcshadypl TC 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 15:00:51 (UTC)

A basic, un-sprung cart in Australia. In that country and in New Zealand, it is known as a dray (but "dray" elsewhere usually means a four-wheeled wagon).
In essence low EV. It is currently used in 3 articles and contributes little in each. A breakdown is as follows:

In cart, it is used in a gallery clearly adding little to the article. Additionally, it's a poor demonstration of what a cart is: it's a broken down, rusting, unused hulk. In wheel, it is also used in a gallery. Not to mention, it's a pretty unspectacular demonstration of a wheel. In horse-drawn vehicle, it is used way down the page and is simply thrown into an already over-illustrated article. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the parts where you would actually attach this to a horse are now missing.

Articles this image appears in
Cart, Wheel, Horse-drawn vehicle
Previous nomination/s
Original nom
Cowtowner (talk)
  • DelistCowtowner (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Convincing. Pretty picture, but currently minimal EV. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Avenue (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Low ev in each of its articles, as demonstrated in the nom. SpencerT♦C 22:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist: Surprising it has stayed in the articles. Maedin\talk 06:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia has always had a shortage of articles about everyday objects such as furniture, and simple vehicles and tools. The fact that we don't have an article to describe an AU/NZ "dray" is just another example of this. One thing I'd like to note about this is that if it's as broken down and unused as the nom claims, the vegetation underneath should be much more plentiful. If you look in the background, you'll see that this is possible in this environment. That means it was either recently used, or the cart was moved in order for the photo to be taken. It does strike me as a nice example of rural decay, or a landscape overtaken by progress. It's a shame that we don't have more contextual information, and equally, that Wikipedia's articles on this sort of topic are probably not very well developed. Digging around a little, this seems neither to be an uncommon sight [10], nor restricted in usage to AU/NZ (apparent London example). Here's a New Zealand example, complete with suitable horse, and a hoomin for scale (context here). And here, confusingly, is a four-wheel Australian "dray", according to the image file name, although the article calls it a wagon (and doesn't even mention drays). My final note is that we do have articles about other types of two-wheel carts, including gig (carriage) and those listed therein, so I'm inclined to think the fault is not really with the image itself. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • PLW, I agree with a lot of that. The unfortunate thing is that we have to judge images in the context of their articles. If one feels so inclined to write an article about drays in Australia this could certainly be renominated. As it stand I don't think it has much EV though. As for being broken down, I'm still convinced that this example isn't used regularly and that if it is a picture could therefore easily be obtained with a horse pulling it. I think that such an example would have greater EV. Cowtowner (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Much better to create an article than to nominate for delist and then again nominate for promote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Feel free to do that yourself then. I know nothing about drays and am not convinced that this would have sufficient EV in that article to justify being featured. Cowtowner (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak support to Keep I do see some EV in horse drawn vehicle article beacuse it says different types of vehicles and one is dray but other then that it does have low EV in the other articles. Spongie555 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Illustrated a half-line entry on a list (which, as mentioned above, it seems to do badly) hardly constitutes FP-level EV. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Backlit mushroom.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 21:05:27 (UTC)

previous delist discussion
I know you may not expect me to nominate fungal pictures for delisting, but this is not particularly useful. It was used in lamella (mycology), but it is hardly representative and not particularly useful (at worse, it could be said to be a little confusing). It's now been replaced. It is in no way identified (beyond the fact it's a mushroom), nor is identification really possible. I will notify the nominator.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Backlit mushroom.jpg
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist — I agree with the delist rationale. (Quite probably a Parasola, FWIW) Sasata (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I guessed Mycena or Marasmius, but you'll be better at it than me. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • See here for a similar individual I once photographed. These are wispy, ephemeral mushrooms that appear overnight and typically last only a few hours before fading into nothing. The white stem, dark gills, and translucent cap with margins turned upwards are pretty solid clues to narrow to genus level I think. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see the issue of whether it can be identified as secondary to the aesthetic aspect. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, firstly, it isn't. We don't promote pictures just because they're pretty- we promote them because of what they add to the articles in which they are used. Secondly, this doesn't change the fact that this is not used in any articles, or the fact that there is no clear use for it. The idea that we keep a picture as featured purely because it's pretty, when it is not used in the encyclopedia, is almost laughable. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not used because you recently removed it. [11] Maybe you were right to do that—I'm not a mushroom specialist so I don't know—but you can't for that reason use that it's not in an article as a reason to delist in and of itself. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You can though. It might be a slight conflict of interest to both remove the image and nom for delisting, but if it did belong in the article it would likely have been re-added by someone else (assuming it gets enough traffic anyway). Alternatively, we could discuss whether it should be re-added here. But it absolutely should be nominated for delisting if it isn't used. As I said below, being used in an article is a fundamental requirement of a FP. If it isn't, and can't be re-homed, it has to go. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • But you can surely see the problem with removing it, and the same person then wanting to delist it, then telling someone who objects that they're being silly because it's not being used. I don't want to be POINTy, but all it would take to demolish that position would be to add it to an article. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Add it to an article where it has EV, which is all of nowhere. Yes, I removed it- two of the main areas in which I work are fungi and featured pictures; I hate to say it, but if anyone's "qualified" to remove it... Alternatively, you could pretend Sasata (who voted to delist and agreed with my reasoning) was the one who removed it- he is even more of a fungi specialist myself, and also a fairly regular participant at FPC, and took note of my edit by pointing out a stupid mistake I made. If you feel there's a procedural problem, that's fair enough, but making a song and dance about it in this instance isn't really gonna achieve much. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not making a song and dance. The only reason I commented more than once is that, given that there's a request for comments here, when people don't say what you'd prefer them to say, I don't think you should tell them how wrong and silly they are. And that's my final point! :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Any keep vote that doesn't address the issue of the photo not having an article home is missing a rather fundamental point. A delist involving an orphaned FP should almost be a formality that doesn't need any discussion, except for the fact that it provides a convenient venue and motivation for finding the FP a new home. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Easy decision. Cowtowner (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Not enough EV. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Questionable nomination as nominator unexplainedly replaced the image in the article. [12] I think it's more suitable than the alternative now used. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added it to mushroom for now so that it's not delisted just because it's not being used, but I agree that it seemed very appropriate in the article it was removed from. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't keep images just because they've been slotted into an article somewhere. We keep images when they are used in a valuable way. PLW, yes, I removed the image from the article in which it was used (to which it was added by someone just to give it a home, not because it had any real value there) as part of a quick effort to clean up the article, which is on a subject I edit a lot. It's adding nothing to mushroom, where it's "just another pretty image"- we should not be adding images to articles to stop them being delisted, that is completely the wrong way to do things. Would you have added it there if it was not nominated here? Of course not- it adds nothing there, and it was not added with the intention of improving the article. I can't believe I'm having to have this conversation- why are people so scared of delisting images?! J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've swapped that image out for something actually related to the section in question... We shouldn't use images just because they're FPs, we should use images that are going to add to the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Closeup of mushroom backlit by sun.
In the collapsed discussion above, several opined delist while the image was not being used in an article. The image was added to an article later in the nomination, which I believe voids some of the votes, and also invalidates the closure as delisted. I think it's fair to relist this.
Articles this image appears in
Mushroom, Transparency and translucency
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Backlit mushroom.jpg
Maedin\talk 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Adding nothing to mushroom, to which it was added purely so that it was being used somewhere. We should not add images to articles just so that they are in use in the article space- we should add images when they are adding something. Also, I don't think it is fair to unilaterally overturn a closure, especially without discussing it with the closer (if Makeemlighter said he was happy for this to be relisted, disregard this part of the comment...). If you feel the image should be featured, you shouldn't decide that the delisting was invalid, you should renominate it. If this genuinely is FP material, it'll pass there, will it not? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops, I had forgotten to notify Makeemlighter of the relisting, I've done that now. I meant to notify you at the same time, sorry! Maedin\talk 11:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • For clarification, I haven't given opinion on either the mushroom's suitability for FP or its suitability in the article. I've only noted that the circumstances changed during the nomination and that votes should have been clarified before delisting. Maedin\talk 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Perhaps it would be easier to just contact those who opposed based on the fact it was not used in any articles ( in the first place to see if their opinions were affected? Then, if some thought it should be kept, it could be reopened or renominated? We're all aware of how many of these discussions close as no consensus, and that would not be a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a cleverly taken photograph of gills, and the only photographic example of them in the article, which I think is essential given that the majority of commonly encountered mushroom species have gills. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This does not display the gills in a particularly useful way. Sure, it's a pretty picture, and sure, it shows that this mushroom (whatever it is) actually has gills, but it doesn't really show what gills are or what they do. I've said this before- I'd love there to be hundreds of featured pictures of mushrooms. That doesn't mean I'm gonna support anything that comes along, and this one is adding nothing to that article- as has been said, it was added to that article so that it was used somewhere, not because it added anything in particular. The fact that it was forced back into the article (in a different place to where it was originally used) after it was initially removed from that article is somewhat telling. (Also, to reiterate, I do not feel that this discussion should be taking place in this format- someone cannot unilaterally reopen a discussion just because they do not like the outcome of the discussion.) J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • How about assuming good faith for five minutes? I think we can all see that Diliff's vote was based on the image not being used, if not a call to action. By the end of the debate, the image was being used, so the concern was addressed and that conditional vote fell, imo. Another vote was completely unspecific in its rationale and hence questionable. It's rare that we can close a debate with more than a borderline consensus of five delists (and kept ones are usually by "no consensus", which offers a variety of interpretations). Remedies have been discussed but no conclusion reached, partly because proposals get not responded to, and there's no collaboration (very sad). Perhaps you need to take a look at yourself and ask whether you frequently expect things to be served to you on a silver platter. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not actually sure what a lot of that is meant to mean, but you ask me to assume good faith, then immediately dismiss someone's vote as "questionable"? Right. Why are you so desperate to keep this picture? It has minimal encyclopedic value (people are still scrapping around trying to find some value- that hardly reeks of it being of great importance...) and the quality is low. This wouldn't pass today. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
          • You're the one clearly desperate to delist. Meanwhile, you haven't made a single substantiated argument, instead sticking to strong language - "scrapping", "reeks", "useless" - I've made a number of very good points for why this is worth keeping, but I'm not expecting you to change your firmly entrenched, bordering-on-political views, or indeed to step back from the discussion and accept someone else's viewpoint as legitimate. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm desperate to delist due to the lack of value, yeah. I've made my arguments clear; if you can't see them, you aren't looking. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist This image is not a good picture to illustrate gills. This image would perhaps fit well in the article backlighting (lighting design), if it didn't already have too many images. Further, I doubt the technical quality of the image would be sufficient to pass now at FPC. Sasata (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the third image there has more of a place than this one - none of the current images in that article illustrate backlighting with translucency as the key property. That said, I found that the applications section of transparency and translucency was unillustrated, and while it probably needs major expansion (article is very biased towards the underlying physics and chemistry, with applications as an afterthought), I think it provides a reasonable starting point. The article itself should probably be tagged with something between {{technical}} and {{unbalanced}}, but I couldn't find the perfect template for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist does not clearly illustrate the gills, or really any part of the mushroom for that matter. Specimen also looks old/shriveled. de Bivort 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • As Sasata has previously stated, these are ephemeral on a timescale of hours, and given where the sun has to be in the sky, I'd say this photo couldn't really be taken any other way unless we're talking about cultivating the species (doubt this has been tried, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I haven't seen as good an image as this on WP of gills. I can't see any reason to delist it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • this is a WP image with better gills, even this non-FP. At least in these images it's possible to tell what's going on, shape wise. Besides, whether or not there is a better image on WP is not a sufficient criterion for promotion to FP. de Bivort 01:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Weak delist. First I would like to say that it's a fine picture and well deserves it's FP status on the Commons. But the argumentation for its delisting seems very strong to me. As for the gills, this is not the best example by far (as pointed out by de Bivort). Also I find it hard to see the EV of the image, and since EV is crucial for WP-FPs, I think I must vote for delisting. --Priest zadok (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It's now also used in transparency and translucency, perhaps you can offer some views on that? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It certainly seems to provide some illustration for the subject matter in question. Not being an unreasonable person, I'll change my vote to 'weak delist'. --Priest zadok (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delist - Adds a little bit to mushroom (the article already has an illustration of gills) and a tiny bit to transparency and translucency (why is it put in the Applications section?), but overall I don't feel like it has enough EV to be featured on Wikipedia. It is an excellent photograph, however, and could probably be featured on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist --George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not a particularly strong candidate in any article IMO. The image that Debivort links to is a much better example of gills on a mushroom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Monarch butterfly[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 22:11:20 (UTC)

Promoted in 2006
Poor composition, mainly. Not used in article space. We have a couple of other monarch butterfly FPs that are superior, here and here. Was considered inferior enough for delisting in early 2008: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Monarch butterfly.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Xvisionxmonarch.jpg

Delisted --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Common blue damselfly[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2010 at 21:32:05 (UTC)

Promoted in 2004
Quality is very sub-standard. Already delisted on Commons, last year.
Articles this image appears in
Blue ringtail, Odonata
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common blue damselfly02.jpg

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Grenville Diptych[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2010 at 01:20:57 (UTC)

The Grenville Diptych was produced for Richard Temple-Grenville, Marquess of Chandos the son of the first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos between 1822 and 1839. The diptych shows 719 quarterings of the family. The left hand panel of the diptych lists the quarterings. These include ten variations of the English Royal arms, the arms of Spencer, De Clare, Valence, Mowbray, Mortimer, and De Grey, among others.
While this might meet the size criteria, I think it fails in the quality realm. It's also just not a very clear scan. This would be much more appropriate as an SVG, especially considering the size of the smaller quarterings, which could use more detail (or at least less blur), therefore it is not one of Wikipedia's best works.
Articles this image appears in
Heraldry, Division of the field, Viscount Cobham, Quartering (heraldry), among others
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grenville Diptych edit2.jpg
  • DelistupstateNYer 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Interesting, certainly, but I agree that the quality could be far higher here. J Milburn (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. I was the one who nominated this one for FPC in the first place. A pity, since this image had a place of honor on the April Fool's main page for 2008. But I can't argue with the rationale presented for delisting it. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist for two reasons: (1) the original is a scan of a half-toned reproduction [13], and (2) the other half of the diptych is not available, nor has it been transcribed for us. SVG argument is nonsense, you'd be working for more than a few weeks to reproduce the intricate border pattern plus shading in a vector format. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Regardless, it would still be preferable in my opinion. Didn't necessarily say it was practical, though. upstateNYer 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This is a completely different beast to any other coat of arms - this one was not made for use on official dispatches etc. Completely impractical for most things, and almost certainly designed as a sort of joke or fancy. I will therefore argue that this is not a case for being illustrated conceptually, but rather a single, once-off piece of art closer in spirit to Botticelli's Birth of Venus than to a traffic sign or simple coat of arms (where SVG would be actually appropriate). So in my opinion, a raster graphics reproduction is the correct medium for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I see what you're saying. You wouldn't vectorize this for the same reason you wouldn't vectorize the Mona Lisa. At the same all other COAs are represented like this somewhere. But it doesn't matter, that's not the point of this discussion. But I understand what you mean now. upstateNYer 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Jujutacular talk 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like you didn't fill in a filename for a new delist nom. Go back and do it now; don't save this page.

File:Chaga hut noadj.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2010 at 13:51:14 (UTC)

A traditional Chaga hut in Kilimanjaro. See image page for lengthier caption.
Not only was there an exceptionally weak/poor consensus to promote this image originally, but it just genuinely doesn't strike me as meeting Criterion 3 – it's a fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot of someone moving about outside a hut. Seriously, Wikipedia has much better than this IMHO!
Articles this image appears in
Chaga people and Hut (dwelling)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chaga hut.jpg
╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢
  • Delist╟─TreasuryTagperson of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I really don't like the overexposed sky, and that discussion would certainly not be closed as a promote today (not that that we should be retrospectively applying that rule to old discussions, of course). I'd be interested in hearing what Muhammad has to say. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist I was on the verge of opening this discussion myself. Obviously Muhammad, you are one of our best photographers, but this one really doesn't do it for me. The blown highlights at top pretty much spill into the top half of the image and kill the photo for me. I don't think this should have ever been promoted. No offense meant to you, of course, Muhammad. upstateNYer 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep When the image was promoted, there was some objection raised on the talk page and it was decided that had the unedited version been nominated since the beginning, the image would have passed without difficulty. Regarding the blown highlights, quoting one of our most recognized photographers, this is what Diliff said,"I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor.". Additionally, the image has very high EV and is the only image of the subject on wiki. Another photographer Dschwen said, "I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro". The extensive caption on the image page shows that the image is not just of another hut but a whole set of customs and traditions that are associated with the Chaga culture. --Muhammad(talk) 03:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Further proof that the image is not a drab; usually my macro pictures get around 10k visitors when they are POTD. This hut image received 19k visitors! It received almost twice the average visitors for the two days preceding it. Had it been a boring image, I am sure it would have gotten less not more. --Muhammad(talk) 03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    We are surely not determining the 'featured' status of images by how many visits they get, now, are we? ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 08:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    This is hilarious. You skip over everything I say and then point out that little bit? You stated that the image didn't meet criterion 3, I in turn ask you, if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? And the page views are just a side by statistic. How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? Criterion 3 clearly states that images need not be aesthetically pleasing, "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative". --Muhammad(talk) 09:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    This is hilarious. Well, I'm glad you're enjoying it. if it is not amongst wikipedia's best works, then why did it get more page views than other of wikipedia's best works? The admins' noticeboard gets more page views than many featured images, but it is not among Wikipedia's best works: quite the reverse, in fact! How many images of Chaga huts do you find on wikipedia? I've not looked, actually, because this piece of information is irrelevant. Images do not automatically become 'featured' simply because they depict something not shown in any other image on-wiki. And furthermore, the image neither shocks, impresses nor particularly informs me. And that presumably goes for the others who have commented here. ╟─TreasuryTagcondominium─╢ 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Well, I am sorry that you don't find the image informative. During the nomination, the reviewers clearly found it quite informative. Regarding the rarity, again quoting criterion 3, "Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all". I have no doubt this image meets criterion 3, but you have the right to your opinion and I will respect that. --Muhammad(talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    You seem to be misinterpreting "unique" – the criterion (listing it alongside "historical images") was clearly referring to an image which is necessarily unique in general; for example, if only one photograph was ever taken of King George III, then it is obviously the only one that it exists at all, and no more could ever be created. Your picture, while it so happens that Wikipedia does not have any others at the moment, is almost certainly not the only image of a Chaga hut in existence, and even if it is, anybody could go and take a new one at any time. ╟─TreasuryTagconsulate─╢ 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    Let's say we do get a new image in the future, how would it be less "fairly uninspiring and drearily-coloured shot"? --Muhammad(talk) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    First of all, you seem to be assuming that every topic is entitled to a featured image. So if we get a new photo, which is equally uninspiring and dreary – then that shouldn't be a featured picture either. Not a good argument for featuring this particular image. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that you have taken the best possible image of a Chaga hut (ie. "How would anyone else's picture possibly be any better?") which seems no little amount vain. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't imply any vanity. I simply wonder how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't. Perhaps next time I should visit the place with a paintbrush and some rainbow paints ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    OK, I take that part back. As for your wondering how a picture can be more colorful if the subject isn't – perhaps you're right. Of course, the composition and the exposure could be improved, but that's all beside the point: it would only matter if 'featured' status was automatically granted to the best image of any given subject. But in fact, it is only given to outstanding images, and if it is not possible to capture an outstanding image of a Chaga hut then that's OK, and it doesn't get featured status. ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 18:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist if for nothing else than for the weak composition. Nergaal (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist because this discussion was never resolved but should have resulted in a delisting because promotion conditions weren't met. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. Sorry Muhammad, I find myself agreeing with the reasoning above. The picture isn't really blowing me away. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No need for apologies. A delist of one of my images was bound to happen. I am just glad all my insects are safe ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 11:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist This image just doesn't strike me as FP quality.... — raekyt 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Paper clip[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2010 at 11:55:52 (UTC)

This paper clip is under the water level, which has risen gently and smoothly. Surface tension prevents the paper clip from submerging and from overflowing the blue glass.
Again, this picture has been removed from the article in which it was originally used. It seems that the picture is popular among the FPC crowd, whilst unpopular amongst the editors of that article. Last time it was nominated for delisting, it was added back into the article with some attempts at discussion. I don't think adding it back again would be a good idea; featured pictures should not be the cause of disputes between "featured picture people" and editors of specific articles.
Articles this image appears in
None currently.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. I support the use of the image in the article but unfortunately also accept the consensus of the editors in that article. They seem to have been overwhelmingly convinced that this looks like rubber and not like the surface of a liquid. I disagree, but eh, what can you do? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If you disagree, then why go with mob psychology? If the editors in that article feel strongly enough about it, they should voice their opinions in this themselves (and in case they don't know about this delist nomination, it might be a good idea to inform them in the discussion). Anyway, I think that this picture is special because it actually shows the contour of the water and how it "bulges out", whereas the other picture that Jujutacular linked below does not show this as clearly. Purpy Pupple (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not going with mob psychology. I've registered my disagreement already as there has already been extensive discussion about the inclusion in the article on the article talk page. We're really only delisting this image because they refused to accept it as a valid illustrative image for surface tension (the consensus was that it looked like rubber, not water and was therefore misleading), not because of the merits of the technical image itself. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist: The image of paper clip floating on water, currently in Surface tension seems better.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Per Diliff. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist as per above--Booksworm Talk? 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per above --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 00:24:26 (UTC)

Polar bears near north pole.jpg
Below current quality standards (noisy, fuzzy)
Articles this image appears in
Polar bear, Arctic, USS Honolulu (SSN-718), etc
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine
Jujutacular talk
  • DelistJujutacular talk 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist Doesn't illustrate anything particularly well... — raekyt 08:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't really think this has any real EV anywhere. It's interesting to look at, but that's a reason to promote on Commons, not here. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist It does visibly struggle when viewed at minimum res. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Will kind of interesting, the quality and EV are lacking. SpencerT♦C 20:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Have the polar bears' eyes been added in paint or what??? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist if only for the wierd eyes...... 13:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bison Skull Pile[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 22:20:53 (UTC)

Photograph from the mid-1870s of a pile of American Bison skulls waiting to be ground for fertilizer. Courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library.
As many regulars here will undoubtedly know, this image has been controversial in the past. Allow me to give a brief history. It was passed with overwhelming support in 2005, the 2007 delist nomination garnered a decent amount of attention, mostly on the side of keeping the image. The 2009 delist gathered huge attention and further momentum to delist.

The arguments that have kept this image featured in the past were the following:

  • Irreplaceable historic value, which overrides quality concerns (sometimes called the "WOW Factor")
  • Acceptable quality given the time (1870s)
  • Huge, massive, unbelievable EV. Bigger than the pile of the skulls!

All three claims are false.

On the first count, there are larger versions out there. This is a poor reproduction of the original. Take for example this uncropped scan File:Buffalo_skulls.jpg, which shows that there is considerably more detail in the original. This source also has a larger image available for a fee. Traditionally, and logically, an image is not featured because it is "the best available". If the best available doesn't clear the bar, then that image simply isn't featured.

The quality is also not acceptable given the time. Taken from the previous nomination, all of these images are from the same time period and have much higher quality.File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, File:Atlanta roundhouse ruin3.jpg, File:George Atzerodt2.jpg, File:Train station with train and coal depot by Gustave Le Gray2.jpg, File:DutchGapb.jpg. Given these alternatives, this version is pitiful.

As for the argument of great EV, its usage in all of its articles does not reflect this. It is generally just thrown into articles where it is a) not discussed b) often lost in an over-illustrated mess c) stands out in an article where it is barely relevant. It is ironic that its own EV as a massive pile of skulls is greatly diminished by its small size. It would be much more impactful if more, nay, any detail was visible.

Full disclosure, I voted to keep last time around. My views have changed. I doubt this would pass today.

Articles this image appears in
American Bison, Bison hunting, American Old West, Environmental racism, Plains Indians, Frontier Strip, Endangered Species, Conservation in the United States, Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant
Previous nomination/s
2005 Nomination, Failed 2007 Delist, Failed 2009 Delist
Cowtowner (talk)
  • DelistCowtowner (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think this is actually simpler than Cowtowner's admirably exhaustive account suggests. The print he links to is of good enough quality to get a much better scan from it than this one. So--anyone willing to pay the DPL 50 bucks for a pro-quality scan? Chick Bowen 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • $15, no need to pay them commercial use tax for a public domain image. — raekyt 14:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Though, if you pay the $15, then upload it as PD, they might be more wary of any other images we might like scanned in the future. I'd throw in $5, but won't have the chance to fix my paypal for the better part of a month. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I checked into acquiring the image and they make you sign this form before you get the image, would signing that form put you at legal risk for a public domain image? — raekyt 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, resolution far too low. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, as in 2009. --Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, too small even for a historical image. --Avenue (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's time for this to go. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep / Delist and replace If there's a better version that we could be using then than have this be a delist and replace nomination but it doesn't make sense to say that there is a better version without offering to do a delist and replace. If someone is willing to do that then this is a delist and replace opinion. If there's an issue of licensing on the other hand then give that as the reason and have that be the reason to delist. The reasoning for delisting should be clear, to the point, and stand up to scrutiny which this seems to fail on all counts. Cat-five - talk 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's true. The reason to delist is that it's too small and there is good reason to believe this scan is not as sharp as the original image. Those are very valid reasons. We are speculating about whether it is possible, for a fee or with some trouble, to get a better one, but to me, that possibility of a better image seems separate from the question of whether this particular image should be listed. Chick Bowen 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Then the issue of whether a replacement can be found should be resolved before this delist nomination is closed. We'd do the same if this was a nomination instead of a delist nomination no matter what the reasoning even if that meant holding it for awhile after the voting window. That's not to say that we need to treat list and delist nominations exactly the same but as I've said in the past there seems to be an undue urgency by a lot of people on FPC to delist images. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Interior of Old Saint Paul's, Wellington[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 05:32:30 (UTC)

HDR image of Old Saint Paul's church, New Zealand
Very small (0.7 Mpix), lack of detail, weak composition, not best example of HDR. Passed on the limit in 2006, but is much below current standard.
Articles this image appears in
Old St. Paul's, Wellington, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Tone mapping
Previous nomination/s
Nomination 2006
Elekhh (talk)
  • DelistElekhh (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Nom pretty much says it all. Jujutacular talk 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Low resolution, only OK quality, and I don't like the lighting or glares from the windows. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Razum2010 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Sam Wants a Better Scan[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 14:15:09 (UTC)

Uncle Sam Wants You, a famous WWI recruitment poster
Lots of ugly stains, this was listed in 2006 but the image isn't actually the one promoted due to a later upload (from an unknown source) - and the promoted one wouldn't be suitable for FP today either, due to small size and being a detail, not the whole image. Restoration of the LoC scans is completely possible. This particular copy is slightly bigger, but heavily JPEG artefacted, which comes out if you try to restore it (I poked at it a bit). Unfortunately, I've sworn off Commons, but I can give an idea of what should be possible:

Legal notice: I do not release that last link into the public domain, and live in Britain, so I have a sweat-of-brow copyright on the extensive restoration. It IS CC-by licensed, though I'd prefer it not be on Commons. Don't mind if it's uploaded to en-wiki, though. Information page is here.

Articles this image appears in
Propaganda, James Montgomery Flagg, Gesture, National personification, Scottish American (why?), Military recruitment, Lord Kitchener Wants You, Uncle Sam
Previous nomination/s
As mentioned above, this has never actually gone through FPC, as it's a new version uploaded in 2008, when the FPC ran in 2006.
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Yeah, per exhaustive nom. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. --Avenue (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Info commons has a different opinion: Commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:I_want_you_for_U.S._Army_3b48465u_edit.jpg regards, Peter Weis (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • How does Commons opposing a superior image to this mean this inferior one shouldn't be delisted? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Since quality is the only real criteria on commons vs quality and EV on enwiki if the only issue is the quality of the image then I'd say that what commons users think can be quite relevant although by no means should we solely base our decisions on theirs. Cat-five - talk 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • But this isn't featured on Commons. So jhow does it not being featured on Commons mean that Commons have a different opinion, and therefore we should keep? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep find a restored version and I'd be more than happy to support delisting this image to replace it. Cat-five - talk 15:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist that was not my point adam. i support your delisting and must admit that i'm not completely happy with the source of my restoration either. if looking at the source of the current fp, you'll notice that this image has a different one. a rescan by the loc or another source could do the trick. regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Starry Night[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 18:56:04 (UTC)

Original featured version
Version from the Google Art Project. Warning most browsers will fail to open this at full res. Use the download button on Commons or check out the zoomify version on the Google Art Project.
Since February 8, the ultra-high-res version of The Starry Night from the Google Art Project has been in place at The Starry Night. I'm not an art guru, but the colors appear to me to be more accurate than the image we currently have featured here. The Google version is cropped closer, but does not appear to leave out anything of importance.
Articles this image appears in
The Starry Night
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Starry Night
Jujutacular talk
  • Delist and replaceJujutacular talk 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This raises an interesting question about the purpose of FPs and images on Wikipedia in general. How useful is a 96 MB image? To many of our readers, it's not. Their browsers will crash when they try to open it (the warning is too far down the page). People probably don't care to save such a large image to their computer, and it's not at all easy or convenient to locate a smaller version. I remember that Durova used to include a smaller "courtesy" version for users with slower connections, but I'm not sure that it was visible enough either. Obviously, we can't keep this image if it's not used in an article, but I'm not so sure we should replace it. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep (i.e., no replace). I've been wondering when this would come up. The Google Art Project is based on zooming--you start with a view of the galleries (which is good, because it reminds people where the paintings are located, which we should but often don't), and then can zoom in to extremely small details. That's not the function of FPs, which are meant to be considered as entire images. So I'm opposed to this. Chick Bowen 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Since I am the only "Keep" vote, I will add delist without replacement as second option. Chick Bowen 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand your thoughts, but nevertheless we have an issue to deal with: the existing FP is not used in the primary article. Perhaps we could reduce the size of the Google version, replace it in the article (and others), link the large version of the image, and mark the reduced resolution version as FP? Jujutacular talk 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd also like to note that we have the {{FPlowres}} template available that could be used in this situation. Jujutacular talk 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't know. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a fuss about it, at the articles and at Commons. It seems to me ridiculous to have the lead image in an article be one that effectively can't be opened in the browser. I think these images violate the principles of our image policy and are outside the project scope at Commons. But perhaps there's consensus for the opposite view; I don't know. Chick Bowen 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I think I agree. I'd like to see a discussion of this somewhere, at least. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • {{FPlowres}} is nice but has the same problem: do casual readers know it exists? When something like this comes up on the Main Page, a lot of people are going to have their browsers crash. In principle, I think we should feature the best version of an image; I just have trouble coming to terms with a nearly 100 MB FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I do still think the colors on the Google version are better. We could scale it down to around 40 MB so that the majority of users could still open it, while still getting a lot of the amazing details. Jujutacular talk 00:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
          • That seems reasonable. I guess we might as well just feature what's used in the article. My concern is less a FP concern than an overall Wikipedia concern. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist It's not used in the article, so it can't be an FP. I'm not sure about replacing yet, but if consensus heads that way, I won't mind. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace I'm not particularly comfortable with a 100mb FP but I'd rather have this delisted and replaced than just be another victim of the delist by default because people can't make up on their minds on replacing the image like what happened with the Panorama of Edo delist. Cat-five - talk 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Would uploading (if possible) and nomating the 3.4gig version be considered a WP:POINT violation? If Wikipedia survived it, that woud be an interesting way to start the discussion on ultra large images. Cat-five - talk 02:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong delist and replace. The existing FP isn't used in the painting's article, and we should feature the best version we can handle. Large size is not really a problem IMO. Most people who click though will just look at the thumbnail on the image page, and not go any further. For those who want more detail, the image page has links to interactive image viewers and a download button with links to smaller sizes. We could upload a smaller version and tag it with {{FPlowres}} too. --Avenue (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace anyone interested in a smaller file (for webuse or else) could download it on commons via the "download all sizes" menu. after all print solutions require the highest resolution and quality available. regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • D&R, so long as lower resolution copies are provided. Cowtowner (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, do not replace: The Google version has the edges cut off. 99% of a painting isn't enough. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Can anyone confirm this? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a little complicated, because Van Gogh did not paint to the edge of the canvas, and the edge of the painted portion is not straight. You can see this very clearly in the currently featured version: at the top left he painted right to the edge, but in the middle left he left what looks like about half an inch of blank canvas. Google dealt with this by cropping it to where the paint ends in the middle, rather than the edge of the canvas. I'm inclined to agree with Adam that Google's way doesn't give the most accurate perspective of what the actual canvas looks like. Chick Bowen 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • D&R This is a no-brainer for me, bigger is better. Also I thought we dealt with this before, we have warnings within the file description page and a link to a zoomify hosted on the tool server for the image in the warning for people to view in their browsers if they wish. Personally I think people don't just accedently click an image on the front page then click the larger preview image again too often by mistake so I don't think that should even be something to worry about. — raekyt 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DelistedMaedin\talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The consistent theme is that the current FP ought to be delisted. The replacement votes (of which there are five) don't address the issue of the cut-off painting, and two of those votes are "discounted" (one for timing and the other for its dependence on lower resolution copies (which haven't been provided yet as far as I know)). I believe the subject is sufficiently thorny and involved that the promotion of the 100 MB version (or a lower resolution/smaller file size copy of it) should be decided in a new nomination and therefore given appropriate attention. Maedin\talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area Skyline Blvd[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2011 at 08:16:25 (UTC)

Panorama of Skyline Boulevard in winter.
Panorama of Skyline Boulevard in summer.
Insufficient resolution by modern standards. Also, the sky is pretty bad in the first image.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco Bay Area Skyline Blvd.jpg
King of
  • Delist bothKing of ♠ 08:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, as above. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, as the second one is not even in use. Nergaal (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, as above. --Avenue (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot air balloon[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 03:00:24 (UTC)

Hot air balloon in Turkey
Too small and low quality.
Articles this image appears in
Hot air ballooning
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2004#Hot_Air_Balloon_Inflation
King of
  • DelistKing of ♠ 03:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm still searching what should be featured here --kaʁstn 09:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Jujutacular talk 20:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, very much lacking. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Wow, how did this ever pass? -- mcshadypl TC 03:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 10:16:10 (UTC)

Diagram summarising control of stomach acid secretion
I am not convinced that this diagram, while clearly very useful, is a great choice as a featured picture. I do not feel that it would pass at FPC today for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is not in SVG format, which would be more that suitable. Secondly, the diagram is covered in somewhat random capitalisation- "Blood Circulation"? "Lumen of Body"? And so on. Thirdly, it is unreferenced; I know a lot of people prefer to see references for diagrams such as this. When placed side-by-side with other diagrams in the category (for instance, File:Circulatory System en.svg, File:Steroidogenesis.svg or File:Complete neuron cell diagram en.svg), it is not in the same league.
Articles this image appears in
Cholecystokinin, Delta cell, Enterochromaffin-like cell, G cell, Gastric acid, Gastrin, Parietal cell, Somatostatin
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/August-2004#Diagram summarising control of stomach acid secretion, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Control-of-stomach-acid-sec.png
Prisonblues (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak delist. It's not bad, but I guess it wouldn't pass today. -- King of ♠ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Yeah, OK, although it's pretty well used after all these years, it's very diagrammatic compared to other illustrations, and looks like there's no chance of getting the creator to update it as he appears to have been gone for several years. I see on his talkpage at least one message suggesting this contains an error/s as well. --jjron (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and jjron. --Avenue (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The main arguments about titles and format seem like easy things to fix. I think rather than delisting if someone would step up and fix those things a D & R would be the better choice. Didn't there use to be a page for bringing to light pictures that needed work? Cat-five - talk 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Changing this to svg will not be easy- it'll probably have to be completely redrawn. There's also the problem of the complete lack of visual interest and the possibility of errors. If someone is willing to do the work, great, but this should be delisted in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Cat-five - talk 22:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Jujutacular talk 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • No arguments in favor of keeping. Jujutacular talk 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rila 7 lakes circus panorama[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 18:52:42 (UTC)

Panoramic photo of the Seven Rila Lakes in the Rila mountains of Bulgaria
Numerous obvious cloning artifacts, as shown in this picture. Image quality is also not great, and I don't like the fact that most of the picture is in the shade.
Articles this image appears in
Glacial lake, Lake, List of lakes in Bulgaria, Rila, Seven Rila Lakes
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seven Rila Lakes panorama
NotFromUtrecht (talk)
  • DelistNotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this one definitely needs to be rethought, as evidenced by the original nomination, which is a bit confused with edits coming in during it, and has some significant questions raised after the close. The clone job above and to the left of the middle lake is particularly annoying to me, and I'd say delist. Chick Bowen 19:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what am I looking at here? J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many cloning artifacts in the image (which are detailed in the image on the German Wikipedia which I linked to), which in my view make this unworthy of FP status because the image is not of a high technical standard. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there are a couple of different issues. There are places, like the one I mentioned above, where the tire-tread-like marks from the cloning tool are visible. There are also places, such as in the clouds and at the bottom right, in which a portion of the image actually appears twice. Chick Bowen 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist I'd even be in favor of expediting this delist since the edits to this image make it absolutely inappropriate to be an FP. Cat-five - talk 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Jujutacular talk 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • No arguments in favor of keeping. Jujutacular talk 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahameru volcano[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 17:48:14 (UTC)

An eruption plume rising over Semeru, with Mount Bromo(?) in the foreground (It is not clear from the category description which mountains are depicted.)
The image was promoted in 2004 (currently listed under 'Places: Landscapes') and the featured picture criteria have changed since then. Specifically, the image does not meet criteria 1 and 3. The image is grainy and seems to have JPEG artifacts (near the boundary between the sky and the mountainside). In addition, the lighting is such that the bottom half of the image is overly dark and, thus, large areas of the mountains contain virtually no visible detail. The image is informative and encyclopedic, but I do not think it continues to be "among Wikipedia's best work"; we do, by the way, have at least two other featured pictures (see here) which show eruption columns.
Articles this image appears in
Indonesia, List of volcanoes in Indonesia, Semeru, Snowball Earth, West African craton
Previous nomination/s
Original FPC nomination (2004)
-- Black Falcon (talk)
  • Delist — -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low quality and small file size. Unclear EV. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. It was fine that it was an FP once, but standards have gone up. FS will go through the same thing eventually. I think it is good actually. If we had started with the too high standard would have never gotten here. But now that we are, may as well delist. That and I can't see much of the plume and the other mountains in pic identification is unclear.TCO (reviews needed) 17:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. Low quality. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per quality concerns. Jujutacular talk 04:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per previous reviewers. Quality is far too low. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep Calm and Carry On Poster.svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2011 at 22:21:51 (UTC)

Inaccurate rendering of a 1939 poster
This is an inaccurate, faithless rendering of a 1939 poster. I have (so far) four main complaints: 1) The font weight seems just a little too much. 2) The letter spacing is completely wrong - much too close together. 3) The sentence spacing is too tight. 4) The colour is completely wrong; the original is not a dayglo red. These things being the case - certainly the last three - it just is not the same as the original. On what basis are we featuring something which is (at least for me) a travesty of the original?
Articles this image appears in
Keep Calm and Carry On
Previous nomination/s
Promoted, Earlier, not promoted
Tagishsimon (talk)
  • DelistTagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Presented with the evidence here i would have to agree. JFitch (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist The original, if available, would be perfectly appropriate, some else's inaccurate interpretation of it is certainly not. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist After comparing to the original (source) and overlaying the two in photoshop, it becomes pretty clear that this recreation is not accurate at all. The dimensions is different, the layout is different, the crown is different.. it's NOT an exact recreation of the original poster, at least not the originals I see on the internet. See below the two examples, I've stretched and fixed the prospective of the shot of the original to be the same proportions as the remade one, but even when you do that, the two are not anywhere near identical. One big flaw is the size and position of the crown, along with size and spacing of the lines and letters. Font faces might also not be identical. — raekyt 07:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the wrong place - take it to the graphics lab! Samsara (FA  FP) 22:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
KCCO compare 1.jpg
KCCO compare 2.jpg
  • Comment Hi there, this is Mononomic, the creator of this image. This originally was a task I picked up from the Graphic Lab, so I feel somewhat at fault for the accusations made here. I'll address the complaints one by one.
Firstly, the vector image was traced in Illustrator from one of the higher-resolution images out of the countless sources from the Internet (copyright has long expired). The idea of having one "original" is somewhat flawed: the original is in a glass case somewhere in England; no "original" can exist in digital form, only close representations of that image. I can guarantee that it matches pixel-perfect to a specific source image, but people's different photographs (angles, lenses, lighting) are bound to produce totally different images that only approximate the original work. As for the font, the sentence spacing and text weight is not a "font face" as some have mentioned: many fonts are similar to the type used here, but historians have agreed that the type was set by hand for this design and is thus impossible to reproduce with a commercial font. As for the color concerns, even the original poster—the one printed by the Ministry of Information—has undergone color shifts over time due to fading, etc. and I picked something close. Even so, a ten-second fix in Illustrator could fix the color issue without having to break out the mob and delist this from Featured status.
It seems that my work is seen "faithless" depiction of a poster, a "travesty" perhaps. If you'd like, I'd be happy to retrace the poster from a new "original" that is deemed to be more of an accurate representation of the true original. I believe that presenting this historical object in vector (SVG) format emphasizes the graphic qualities of the original artwork, instead of the photographer's ability to take a picture of the poster which may or may not be an original. By distilling an iconic image such as this one into vector format, we are providing a professional and accurate depiction of the fundamental intent and message of the poster.
I hope this clears some things up. I'll be checking back to see how it progresses. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 04:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you provide the source of the image you used to trace from? There's TONS of remade versions of this floating on the internet, from new products, t-shirts, everything. The link above is a photograph of a real original poster (at some book store that found a copy and has it on the wall), it's pretty high resolution, just not a straight on shot, so it needs fixed in Photoshop before you can trace. I have SIGNIFICANT experience in Photoshop and illustrator (10 years working in graphic design from newspapers to magazines) so I'm not a total noob here. I have a strong feeling that either (a) there are multiple versions of this that the government put out, which is possible, poster making in that time wasn't really an exact process and there was variation between the versions. It's probably stenciled and hand painted posters, if I had to guess. All I can say is the poster I compared it too, it is not an accurate match to it, the front spacing is off, the line spacing is off, and the crown is the wrong size and not in the same position. I'm not 100% sure that you didn't accurately retrace another version of the poster, and from what I know of poster making of the period it's very possible that there is wide variation in each poster. But please show us what you traced so we can decide from that? — raekyt 04:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe it was this based on my notes about the original file, but I didn't write down the exact link so I can't be 100% sure. —Mono·nomic 14:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That's definitely not an image of an original poster, that's someone's recreation of it. From our comparisons with original posters there is some fairly significant differences in the typeface and formatting. It can probably be resolved, but as it stands I'm still sticking to delisting until theses issues are resolved. — raekyt 06:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept that Mononomic's recreation is a faithful copy of whatever he/she copied it from, but as observed here and elsewhere, it is not a copy of the original. That makes it faithless. And the colour is a complete and utter travesty. Sorry dude, but even accounting for colour shift arising out of the passage of time, the original was never a dayglo gloss red. In the event that you do recreate it and wish it to be featured, you need to make a much better colour choice than you did this time around. I don't know how you create a matt orangy-red in photoshop, but I can advise that it is not a uniform d00000 (which would be what? Some sort of primary red colour?).
Your comments on the "mob" are not helpful. The fact is that by the lottery of these things, the photo came up as prospective picture of the day. That was the point at which I became aware that it was featured; the image had been pissing me off for some time previously - vide my recaptioning in September. It's clear to me that the original listing was flawed, and the correct thing is to delist, pending an improvement such that a recreation can be considered for a new listing. The incorrect thing is to keep a flawed image listed, on the off chance that an improvement can be made. I'm sorry, but not very surprised, that you are now a bit pissed off. But that's what happens when you pass off a flawed copy as an original, even if you're unaware that that is what you're doing. --09:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talkcontribs)
  • I understand your concerns. I'll see if I can trace a new poster based on the image raeky provided that would be more suitable. I believe FP delists have 14 days from the original nomination until a verdict is reached, no? We'll see what I can get done by then. If you can find another source image that would be more suitable, please let me know. Cheers, —Mono·nomic 15:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I admire your reaction to all of this. I suspect in your position I'd have succumbed to the temptation to say say "sod it" or "bugger them" and walked away from it all. So you have my vote for red poster wikipedian of the year; if that helps. I don't know of any other online sources of the poster, but point you at the final comment of the first thread on the KC&CO talk page Talk:Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On#Poster_shows_modern_recreation.2C_not_original which (assuming good faith) has a link to a scan of the original. Right now, possibly related to the ongoing trade mark dispute, Barter Books has taken down their original copy. I'll see if I can find out where it is and get a photo of it. Finally, I wouldn't worry about whether or not this instance is delisted. If you come up with a faithful version, you'll get widespread support - including mine. Time is not of the essence; accuracy is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist and Replace Lets fix it rather than delist it. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • There isn't a replacement option available, nothing that has been linked would pass as a FP with the evidence presented here. JFitch (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded a snap of the original poster Image:Keep Calm And Carry On - Original poster - Barter Books - 17-Oct-2011.jpg and have swapped out the SVG from the article page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we have our replacement candidate. Does somebody want to take this on or do we have to bring it to the graphics lab? upstateNYer 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't support that as a replacement, it has reflections from the glass frame and the skewing isn't exactly right. — raekyt 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; it's not & never will be a candidate for a FP. Meanwhile I've started a discussion on the KC&CO talk page as to whether we'd prefer a flawed photo of a shiny synthetic replacement. Contributions welcomed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or abort nom as per previous comment that this is the wrong channel for raising the complaint. I've now made a minimal fix to the file, which is to put the crown symbol in the same relation with the "KEEP" text as is found in Tagishsimon's uploaded image. I'm under no illusion that this puts things right, but I'm confident that others will build on my work to make it so. Have at it! Samsara (FA  FP) 11:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No. The colour is still all wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how that was relevant to my previous statement, but I'll just point out that there seems to be no consensus yet on what the colour should be. I should emphasise that I in no way volunteer to be your foil for this issue. If you want to debate the merits of showing the colours as faded vs. what they would have looked like in the day, please find someone else who has that sort of expertise. Samsara (FA  FP) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me spell it out, Bubba. You're recommending that the nomination be aborted and, if I understand you, that we keep the featured status. I disagree, because I think the colour is wrong. I'm not seeking to make you a foil for this issue. I'm merely disagreeing with your assertion that this should be a featured picture. That's the sort of discussion we tend to conduct in delist pages such as this. I note that at least a couple of people who have seen original versions of the poster disagree with the throbbing red of this image. I accept that you do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on colour, and that's fine. But getting your panties in a bunch as you have just done when what seems to be legitimate opposition to your view is expressed, is less fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The apparent resolution of the issue, although I'm somewhat surprised at the colour "compromise" that Tagishsimon seems to have jumped to, after characterising the colour of the current FP as "dayglo red" and insisting that this was the wrong colour. I did look up dayglo red and was left wondering if any of this debatering had actually got us anywhere. I believe an impartial analysis of whether Stuart Manley's "folded poster at the bottom of a box of random books he'd bought at auction" is in any way authentic or even faithful is still outstanding. Meanwhile, someone else has picked up the story. Perhaps someone has the time to read the thesis cited therein, as I am suspicious of the journalist's synopsis thereof (not that there isn't plenty else to be suspicious of...). Samsara (FA  FP) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ebony Bones... or is it?[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2011 at 14:24:16 (UTC)

Ebony Bones?
Almost definite misidentification (see previous discussion); used in no articles used in one article, with the need to evaluate its EV. Something funky is going on with the image as it shows no transclusions (yet we have at least 3).
Articles this image appears in
Backing vocalistNone
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ebony Thomas
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • DelistCrisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, unused is no good. If we could get a name for this person, and confirmation that she works for Thomas, would it be of use in backing vocalist (which has no images, though it also needs a lot of work)? Since I'd never heard of the person this was thought to be, I find myself somewhat indifferent to the revelation that it isn't she. Chick Bowen 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm... although the individual person's name would be difficult to ascertain, the backing vocalists for Thomas are called the Wives. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Now the question is if the EV is high enough now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand the concerns below, but personally I'd be happy to let it stand for now, and maybe revisit it if we don't get more info. It's a terrific shot I think. Chick Bowen 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Not a lot of EV for Backup singer, since it's not clear from this photo that she is one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Quite a shame, it's a good pic. Jujutacular talk 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist Not of a notable person, and questionable EV at best for "backup singer." Clegs (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. A shame. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Delisted --Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:52:13 (UTC)

A user-created SVG drawing of a pirate
As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted. Two other pictures by this editor, File:Mad scientist.svg and File:Villainc.svg, have also been delisted previously.
Articles this image appears in
Eyepatch Piracy Pirates in popular culture
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirate
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • DelistCrisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a good depiction of "pirates in popular culture", a subject that is open to artistic interpretation. I don't think a photo would be any more valuable. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The main issue is that it is not by a notable artist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not being presented as an art form. As such the only criteria it must meet are those of this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. per above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist, as this most certainly would not pass today. While I agree with Saffron's claim that this is not being presented as art, I fail to see where this image has any EV- Mahahahaneapneap points to pirates in popular culture, but there, it is merely thrown alongside a list of appearances of pirates in comics and manga. It's not illustrating anything in particular, and the article would be no worse-off without it. J Milburn (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Delist:Agree with your reasoning, File:Villainc.svg had a similar fate, now these cartoons don't meet today's criterias. --Extra 999 (Contact me) 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom and per above. Notwithstanding the low ev concerns, there are also more artistically distinctive and detailed images of pirates in popular culture. SpencerT♦C 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist I actually think this has value for showing stereotypical characteristics of a pirate, but it's just not FP level anymore. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't really see how this illustrates pirates in popular culture, since this pirate is not taken from popular culture but is rather one person's interpretation of the general traits that pirates in popular culture have. A better reproduction than those we have of one of the Wyeth illustrations from Treasure Island would seem to me more appropriate. Chick Bowen 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per arguments above. Also, I think we need to be a little concerned about circularity with topics like "cultural depictions of". certainly we should exclude done for wiki from that sort of topic.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per above arguments. Clegs (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Blender house picture[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2012 at 12:30:50 (UTC)

Picture of a house, created using Blender
Although the image is admittedly striking, it's EV is fairly low. In the Blender article it is only in a gallery, while in Computer-generated imagery it is next to a paragraph about using software for architectural purposes... which this image would be useless for.
Articles this image appears in
Blender (software), Computer-generated imagery
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ImpressiveBlender3DWork
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist per my extensive reasoning when this went through Picture Peer Review and FPC in early 2008. I think it's a fine image, but unillustrative of Blender. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. Usage.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Horse animation[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:58:47 (UTC)

An animated horse created by a Wikipedia editor based on photographs by Eadweard Muybridge
As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted.
Articles this image appears in
Animation, 12 basic principles of animation, and several more.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animhorse.gif, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/animhorse
Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • DelistCrisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per the the 2007 delist discussion. --jjron (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep — Hasn't it already been here several times before? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, so what? There's no ban on renominating images for delisting. If you believe the image still meets the criteria, that's fine, but please offer your reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I think his point is that no new argument has been made for delisting. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It hasn't been here for four years which is a long time in FPC - things change. Besides which Crisco's reason actually is a new argument. I didn't support it based on that argument, personally I simply still agree with my own reasoning from four years ago, but others may agree with his new point. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
          • You're right; consensus can change. I was just trying to clarify what I thought TA's point was. I'll meet you halfway with the rest: it's a new argument, but it's not a convincing one. I don't recall any consensus that user-generated art doesn't have enough EV. File:Glass ochem dof2.png, File:Lone House.jpg, File:Glasses 800 edit.png, and File:Terragen render.jpg are all user-generated art. Creating art through software doesn't seem much different from animation. The EV comes from what the image shows, not who made it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
            • For animation, with a goodly number of professionally drawn cartoons in the public domain, I'd think it is fair to ask for high quality. We don't go adding user created art to postmodernism willy-nilly and then make it featured, do we? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
            • @Makeem, I'm not sure if we're meeting halfway, I think we agree; I agree with you re the user generated art thing, and I also don't know of anywhere where a consensus was reached saying it was unfeaturable. I was merely pointing out that it was a new argument re this image, and some others may agree with it (and as I said above, it's not what I've based my delist vote on). --jjron (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
              • We were meeting halfway before I re-wrote my comment and left that part. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist; this sort of cartoon is really not representative of the best work of a 2010s encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Best work? Maybe not, but isn't it pretty good as an illustration of animation and rotoscoping? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe, maybe not. I think not, but, regardless, an image needs to be "among Wikipedia's best work" to meet the featured picture criteria. This fails. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Certainly not overall best work, but a 2-minute search convinced me it's still one of our better images illustrating animation. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist per J Milburn. SpencerT♦C 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist reluctantly. As with the pirate below, I feel this image still has decent EV, but it too no longer reaches the level of FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delist. Its value seems very narrow to me, since most such cartoonish animations would not be made backwards from a series of photographs like this. It really only illustrates the very specific, almost unique technique that was used to create it. Chick Bowen 04:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree that an example of professional illustration would be superior (even if not artistically, example wise).TCO (Reviews needed) 03:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it makes a good illustration for a couple of those articles, and don't see an issue with the cartoon style. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Extra 999 (Contact me) 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2012 at 01:52:27 (UTC)

This would not pass today- it's very small (only just over the minimum) and the technical quality is low. The crop is also unfortunately tight. We have a stronger photo, but this is also far below current standards.
Articles this image appears in
Fauna of Australia, List of sub-national animals, List of symbols of Australian states and territories, Phyllopteryx, Symbols of Victoria (Australia), Syngnathidae
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WeedySeadragon
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Better pics exist of this species. (kinda tangential, but the infobox hurts usage of the photo in article.) TCO (Reviews needed) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Was gonna nom this one myself sometime back but didn't get around to it. I'm not one for blindly applying current expectations to all old FPs, but sadly this one is well below FP standards. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • No arguments in favor of keeping. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Red-necked Stint[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 02:57:45 (UTC)

Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis), Winter Plumage, Ralph's Bay, Tasmania, Australia
I was lucky, and think this image has been superseded by the image currently nominated for featured status
Articles this image appears in
Swan Bay and Port Phillip Bay Islands Important Bird Area
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Calidris ruficollis 2.jpg
JJ Harrison (talk)
  • DelistJJ Harrison (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. -jjron (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist, assuming the current FPC passes. Nikthestoned 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh as this should be a D&R nom - anything else is messy and whoever originally proposed that it must be this way probably needs to rethink their position. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This is mostly reactionary - I would prefer it that any new image is considered on it's own merits. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per JJs. Pteronura brasiliensis 00:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas More[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 22:52:17 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas More
The current FP comes from the the Yorck Project, which is notorious for its bad reproductions, it should be replaced by this Google Art Project file which is superior in both colour correctness and size.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sir Thomas More
P. S. Burton (talk)

Delisted --Jujutacular (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Las Meninas (2)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 18:22:33 (UTC)

Not being used in article space, as it has been replaced in all 16 instances by the much larger Google version, File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg. We've determined that the Google version is too dark and not suitable to replace this version as FP: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Las Meninas. Before I go changing all of the articles, however, I think it's worth asking first if this version is going to stay put in the articles, and do we want it to? Perhaps neither version is FP-worthy?
Articles this image appears in
none at present
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Las Meninas
  • Delist per earlier nom. 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talkcontribs)
  • Delist. It's not the place of FPC to declare that article editors are wrong to use a different image, so, regardless of whether we promote the other (and I don't think another nom would be a bad thing) this one should be delisted. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist and once this clears, renom the other. Clegs (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist As per above. NauticaShades 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist - Per above. Tomtomn00 (talkcontributions) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Map of Goa[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 16:44:59 (UTC)

Administrative map of Goa
The original reasons for promotion bear little resembelence to today's criteria: there doesn't seem to be a source for the map, either for data or verifiability; the scale doesn't have any units. Original creator/nominator is inactive. I'd consider making an SVG version if it can be brought up to standards.
Articles this image appears in
Goa, North Goa, South Goa
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of Goa
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)
  • DelistGrandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. This really isn't up to the standards we'd expect today. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per J Milburn. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 08:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, and note that the compass rose is much too jarring Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-deadline vote/comment: this should be delisted, even if it only had four votes at deadline. It's pretty clear-cut. Chick Bowen 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg (2nd nomination)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 13:18:04 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still a crab.
File was nominated here for delisting based on its non-usage. A discussion regarding its usage in the article on the species just finished, and the consensus was that doesn't add enough new information to include it in the article. Since it's not in any article, we need to have a delist vote on it.
Articles this image appears in
Nothing; formerly Pachygrapsus_marmoratus
Previous nomination/s
FP nom; Delist nom
Clegs (engage in rational discourse)
  • DelistClegs (engage in rational discourse) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. The discussion has determined that this does not belong in the article. Further, as it is not actually illustrative of the key differences between the sexes, this adds nothing to the other, already featured image. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, if it is really so necessary, delist this photo. No problem and no any personal insult for me. Cheers. ;-) -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist has no article. Tomer T (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist, should be fast-tracked back to FP if it finds a home. Chick Bowen 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bad Hoss[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 16:18:18 (UTC)

A Bad Hoss (1904) by Charles Marion Russell
Procedural nomination: no longer used in any articles. Removed from Cowboy in this edit with the reasoning that it was not relevant to the section it was in. Removed from Charles Marion Russell only 3 days after its insertion.
Articles this image appears in
none; was: Cowboy, Charles Marion Russell
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Marion Russell - A bad hoss (1904).jpg
howcheng {chat}

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

NASA Osprey[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 04:40:06 (UTC)

An osprey, by NASA
Terrible, terrible, terrible technical quality.
Articles this image appears in
Dozens, but not Osprey or a species article
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Osprey
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Easy delist. Amazing how much our standards have changed. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist poor quality. extra999 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist noisy. Pine(talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Composionally a nice shot, shame about the poor quality. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that the version we are looking at seems to be an upsample. The original discussion was evidently about this version. I don't know if that makes a difference, given the lowish resolution, but at least it might explain the thinking of the original voters. Chick Bowen 01:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist, not great quality. --Avenue (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Tomer T (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Magellanic penguin[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 09:24:19 (UTC)

Magellanic penguin, by NASA
Blown highlights, lack of use
Articles this image appears in
Supraorbital gland, List of birds of Chile
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magellanic penguin
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm not sure it's any worse than the current lead image in that article, but its usage currently lacks any real EV, and the blown highlights and uninspiring crop do not scream "featured picture" at me. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. As I've said before I'm not for just delisting anything that might not pass today, but quality of this is well down. --jjron (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Tomer T (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Only part of the animal is in focus, blown highlights, marginal resolution. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 06:24:21 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge at night
I wouldn't say this is an obvious delist, but I'm taking this opportunity, on the 75th anniversary of the bridge's opening, to nominate this image for delisting as I just don't think the quality is very good. Interestingly, the same was said during its nomination seven years ago, but its technically challenging nature seemed to override that. I imagine standards have gone up since then, and having seen other photos of the Golden Gate Bridge taken during less-the-ideal lighting times (e.g. before dawn) this doesn't seem to meet the expectations for a featured picture. Maybe the best night photo we have, but I feel this is quite distant from the best we can do and its difficulty shouldn't outweigh its quality deficiencies.
Articles this image appears in
Golden Gate Bridge
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ggb by night.jpg
-- tariqabjotu
  • Delist — -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Blown highlights + chromatic aberration + marginal size and quality = Delist. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not awful. D&R if a better version gets uploaded. -- King of ♠ 23:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. This is damn near identical to the non-featured (and would-not-be-featured) day-time lead image in the article, I guess they're taken from a standard vantage point, yet I'd say the lead image has higher EV (bridge structure is far clearer, etc); probably why it's the lead. Sure this one is a decent and pretty picture, as many pics of the GGB are, but not FP in my view. This is now buried well down in the article. I guess you could argue it's good EV for the bridge at night, but even then lights are really strong, especially at the far end of the bridge where they totally dominate the picture. Seems the Commons delist of this on quality grounds was pretty conclusive a couple of years back. --jjron (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Nice, but hardly featured picture material. I don't think it's the worst picture in our galleries, but this is a highly, highly photographed landmark. We can expect better. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, Jjron, and others. --Avenue (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Greencastle Harbour[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 02:10:13 (UTC)

I nominated this for deletion a while ago for copyright reasons, but you know Commons: it could be months. I think we should go ahead and delist it. In addition to the copyright problem (which is that there's no evidence that the underlying painting is free, just the digitization), EV seems low to me: it was originally supported in part based on its use in Greencastle, County Donegal, but it hasn't been used there in some years.
Articles this image appears in
Sheila McClean
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean
Chick Bowen
  • DelistChick Bowen 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Even if the license is actually correct, the artistic quality is quite low and the subject can be replaced by photo, which would bring much higher EV. Brandmeistertalk 20:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist because of the problematic licensing. I'm open to this having EV as a representative of the artist's work, but the licensing has to come first. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspended pending resolution of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


  • File deleted. Julia\talk 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg (2)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 16:19:08 (UTC)

Possibly the wrong species
First time around, we ran out time after trying to determine if this was a picture of the correct species or not. The conclusion was that it might be, but it wasn't 100% certain. Without a definitive species identification, then it by definition it should be delisted. Regardless, it's still not in any articles, and Melo aethiopica is a one-line stub with a large infobox and three images, so there's not really any room there.
Articles this image appears in
None (was: Melo aethiopica)
Previous nomination/s
FPC nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
First delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
howcheng {chat}
  • Delisthowcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Not used in article. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist if unused. --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist as unused. If a home is found for it it can be speedily reinstated. Chick Bowen 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I participated in this discussion. And yes, the five delist minimum has not been met. But this image is still not used in article space. This is the most important criterion for FP, so this image must be delisted. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Navajo man in ceremonial dress[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2012 at 14:01:14 (UTC)

Charlie Day, a European American trader's son, costumed as a God Impersonator, in ceremonial dress including mask and body paint, c.1904
Image is no longer used in the corresponding article, and the article doesn't mention the relevance of the image or the depicted costume. EV is further called into question due to the fact that the photo appears to be unauthentic. According to Pinney, Christopher; Peterson, Nicolas (2003). Photography's Other Histories. Duke University Press. :

Research into an early trading family's unpublished photographic archive revealed that Curtis's masked Navajo were often phony - they were actually photographs of a European-American trader's son in Navajo gear! ... Curtis's turn-of-the century project was motivated by a nostalgic concern for the "vanishing race."

There's also an anonymous comment on the file talk page stating that it is culturally insensitive.
Articles this image appears in
History of painting; used to be in Navajo people
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Navajo man in ceremonial dress
Paul_012 (talk)
  • DelistPaul_012 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist, not used in a significant way. Its use in History of painting makes little sense, since the article has no other discussion of body paint that I could see at a quick glance, and it is otherwise unused. In addition, the concerns raised by Paul 012 in the nomination are valid ones. Chick Bowen 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. Potentially could be used encyclopedically in the context of discussion about Curtis's photography, but, so far as I can see, we have none. (And it may not be something significant enough to discuss anyway.) J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per Chick Bowen
  • Delist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Full Moon[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 20:50:36 (UTC)

Nearly Full Moon view from earth.
No longer the best picture available. To be replaced by this nomination. No need for two Featured Pictures of the same thing.
Articles this image appears in
Used only in Template:The Moon (as far as a I know. I'll be checking all links.)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Full Moon
  • DelistDusty777 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace with the larger image. Pine 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace per nom. SpencerT♦C 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace per nom. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace per nom. --WingtipvorteX PTT 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Replaced picture in Template:The Moon with new nomination. The file page still says it's used in all listed articles, but I can't find it in any of the articles, if someone can help me troubleshoot that. Dusty777 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. (The other has now been promoted.) I have also replaced this image with the new one on Book:Moon. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above Mediran talk|contribs 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Panorama of Château de Chambord, France.[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 00:01:52 (UTC)

Panorama of Château de Chambord, France.
Not in use in the article any more. Superseded by the picture nominated here.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chambord pano.jpg
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist JKadavoor Jee 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Clearly not as good as the proposed replacement, which looks certain to pass. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Should have been opened as a D&R. -- King of ♠ 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem using two separate processes. Forcing D&R implies that FP status affords protection to an image in the article. It doesn't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • There is a major problem with using two separate processes when they end up keeping both images when they serve an identical purpose. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Agree with J Milburn. Especially since almost exclusively, a D&R comes as a result of the old FP already having been superseded in an article by a superior image. In fact, I think FP status does afford some protection to an image in an article, if not dogmatically then at least in practice because many editors (even those not involved in FPC) do revert removal of FPs on the basis of them being featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
        • But the current implementation of D&R under delist is not very fruitful. Please notice JJH's comment on the D&R request below: "I prefer not to do delist and replaces when nominating as it is tough to get a quorum". I think the best way is to consider a normal FPC as a D&R if anybody (including the nominator) add another FP there (just like an alt/edit) to replace. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
          • This could very easily be solved by just listing the D/R and delist options with the rest of the nominations. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Good idea; not many people spend time to scroll down and reach here; I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Probably not the best place to discuss it but I'd support reworking D/R's to be up with the rest of the nominations, it is essentially a nomination anyway.. — raekyt 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
                • I'd also like to support if somebody (probably a more experienced user here) will raise a proposal at the talk page (I guess it is the right place). JKadavoor Jee 12:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delisted --Julia\talk 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Racist campaign poster[edit]

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

A racist pro-Hiester Clymer campaign poster for the 1866 governor's election of Pennsylvania.
Frankly, I was shocked to see this was one of Durova's nominations, and can only presume that the very small size (1.34 megapixels) stymied someone used to much larger scans. Between the horrible condition of the original, and the very poor scan of it, this image, while certainly encyclopedic, is well below our best work.
Articles this image appears in
Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era, Hiester Clymer, John W. Geary, Racism, Sociology of race and ethnic relations
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Racist campaign poster
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you referring to the torn edges, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not just that: There's a bright line across the middle of it, and a dark patch going down towards the centre. It's also pink, which I really doubt is the original colour. It's also fairly blurry, over-exposed (Victorian ink is quite a bit darker, and doesn't fade like that), and the resolution is very low, although not so low that it couldn't have passed at the time. The thing is, I vaguely remember this nom, and I don't remember it being this bad; and Durova's philosophy generally involved trying to make something look as it did when it was new So I don't know what's going on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you have the bits at Commons? Maybe you could check to see if there's a deleted version, or if a page has been redirected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't unfortunately. I, like several admins there, resigned them in protest when Jimbo was deleting all historical paintings and engravings that contained nudity, in an attempt to placate FOX News. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • For now, Delist pending clarification of any possible "ghost files" which may have disappeared somewhere. The crease mark is blatant even at preview size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist if that's the current view of this file as it stands. Although as you can see I chose not to vote in the original nomination I do remember it and I am quite sure this is the same file. People were impressed at Durova's efforts to repair the hole in the middle of the original scan, so that's why they supported. To be honest, there are a number of digital restorations from that era we might reconsider; standards are definitely higher now. Chick Bowen 01:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, good to have that mystery cleared up, anyway. And don't get me wrong: It's a good filling in of the hole; if it was a better scan by the LoC... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. A worthwhile and valuable image, but not FP quality. --jjron (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: based on Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Racist campaign poster I don't think there's anything funny going on. I think the file as currently viewed was the one that passed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Castle Ashby grave[edit]

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

A photograph taken in the Castle Ashby graveyard
Poorly done digital black and white; if it's intended to resemble black and white film it did not succeed. Noisy, tilted. Cliched subject matter. I could go on. . .
Articles this image appears in
Castle Ashby Manor is the only one left; the others listed in the original nomination no longer use it.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CAGrave.jpg
Chick Bowen
  • DelistChick Bowen 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, as above. Minimal EV. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. Not digging the EV. --jjron (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. I can understand this passing in 2005; but the project has changed substantially since then, and this sort of somewhat clichéd art image doesn't really fit modern FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

India locator map[edit]

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

An outline of India, without any captions, no cities listed, that allows lazy use in articles of not-particularly-useful maps.
Locator maps are useful ways to get a temporary map into an article showing its rough location. But they fail to show any other context: For example, they tend not to be geographical maps, so fail to give infornation on major features nearby, and show no other cities, so fail as political maps. As such, the encyclopedic value is low, and the best you can say about them is that they're a fast way to get something for your article.

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

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

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

Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist mostly per nom. We have hundreds of similar maps, many with more detailed geographic information. In itself the locator map has limited EV, has no scalebar and shows no international boundaries between neighbouring countries. --ELEKHHT 04:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom --Muhammad(talk) 08:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. Per what Adam says above, it bothers me that this has very little potential value outside of Wikipedia, or even the narrow locator usage within Wikipedia. Most of our FP maps are much more versatile. Chick Bowen 16:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist I personally think locator maps are very useful, but they are not in and of themselves "Wikipedia's best work". Jujutacular (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
They can be useful as a stopgap, where they stop being useful is when even featured articles use them, without adding other cities. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 21:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Brassica oleracea[edit]

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

The fractal shape form of a Romanesco broccoli.
Possible replacement 1
Possible replacement 2
Possible replacement 3
The image does not meet the size standards, and also, I find it somewhat out of focus, dizzy and weird. Better images can be found.
Articles this image appears in
Brassica oleracea, Broccoflower, Romanesco broccoli,
Previous nomination/s
  • DelistΛΧΣ21 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, don't replace. 1 is OK, but given the amount of space around the vegetable, it's pretty small. 2 has a weird background and part of the subject is out of focus; 3 is almost entirely out of focus. You're quite right about the original. Chick Bowen 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Update I have improved the first possible replacement. I think it is up to standard now. — ΛΧΣ21 01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I don't think that was an improvement. I reverted it, primarily because I think, for the sake of courtesy, a change that great should be upload under a separate filename. But also--all you did was crop it and whiten the background, though not uniformly, leaving some odd gray blotches. Chick Bowen 21:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, don't replace - I think that from a technical quality standpoint, possible replacement 1 is the best. It is to me, however, the worst of the four at illustrating the... erm... fractalness of the plant. The angles on the other ones all show it better, IMO. That being said, I think that the backgrounds of replacements 2 and 3 are distracting, and I'm really not a fan of the original. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, don't replace to many options presented, once a good one is located it can be nominated separately, but this image needs to go for sure. — raekyt 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment I warned about this on the talk page, we can't start delisting retroactively just because the size standards change. Go to the original nomination (linked above) and you'll see nobody even mentioned the size of the image. Unless there is a good reason to delist it or an image that better represents the subject then it should be kept. If you think it should be delisted because it's out of focus then nominate it for that, don't use it as a hedge reason because people might notice that the size criticism doesn't hold up to an examination of the FP criteria. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I cannot speak for everyone else, but my delist vote was not based primarily on the size; it was because the subject is not sharp, and has a strangely abstracted relationship to the black background, which I'm quite sure is artificial. This feeling is pretty well summed up by the nominator's comment that the image is "weird." I strongly agree with you that images shouldn't be delisted solely because of size. Chick Bowen 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      • My criticism was mainly aimed at the nominator more than the voters but something that the voters should keep in mind. Too many people use size as a reason to oppose a nomination or support delisting but try to backstop it with another issue. In this case the other issue may be pertinent and a good enough reason to delist but if it is then the size shouldn't be an issue. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Since there may very well be a non-size reason to delist I'm crossing off my keep vote and turning it into a comment. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • My vote has nothing to do with size, but it's just a BAD picture, BAD cutout, and even if it was a huge image I would never vote for it. — raekyt 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace with #1, higher resolution and high EV because of its sterile setting. --LucLewitanski (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe this picture should be delisted due to it not meeting current size requirements. I believe that it was agreed that current FP's would not be affected by the criteria change. Dusty777 01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Jakarta slum children[edit]

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

Several children in a Jakarta slum
This image was promoted in 2005 largely because of its' "message", however the quality of the image itself seems poor to me. Both the framing and the lighting seem bothersomely off, and the EV is decent, but there are enough similar images that it can't be carried by EV alone.
Articles this image appears in
Child poverty
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jakarta slumlife65.JPG
Sven Manguard Wha?
  • DelistSven Manguard Wha? 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist provides almost no EV to Child poverty, just children playing with trash, can be of any soceio-economic background without more information really... doesn't illustrate poverty as well as billions of other images could. — raekyt 00:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak delist. It's underexposed and little noisy, but that it has stuck as the lead image in the article for seven years suggests it has some kind of EV. I could be swayed either way if we had more information about how typical (or not) this kind of scavenging is in Jakarta, whether there are risks associated with it, etc. Chick Bowen 19:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Changed to full delist, since I think File:Jakarta slumlife14.JPG is a far better illustration of child poverty, and I will place it as the lead image in the article if and when this one is delisted. Chick Bowen 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, in response to Chick Bowen. Landfills small and large quite common in Jakarta, where poor garbage management contributes to flooding because of blocked drainage, such as the most recent one last month. It may not have encyclopedic value for a broad topic such as child poverty, but could for a focused article on the city's environmental management. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Hindsight is 20/20 but it's hard to believe that this image was ever considered the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It was promoted on account of its message, not its quality. That much is clear from the original nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Three cell growth types[edit]

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

Three cell growth types
Image does not satisfy the current FP criteria. It is small (as a diagram this should probably be SVG). While it has encyclopaedic value in giving a rough comparison of the types of cell division, this is limited because the diagram itself doesn't clearly illustrate any of the steps nor lend itself to proper captioning. The description within the diagram is also technically incorrect as cytokinesis and fertilisation are also included in mitosis and meiosis.
Articles this image appears in
Cell division, Cell growth
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Three cell growth types
Paul_012 (talk)
  • DelistPaul_012 (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom, though the best thing would be if someone redid it with those criticisms in mind; that this is still used prominently in several articles suggests that there is a need. Chick Bowen 00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. I am not comfortable commenting on the biology, but, at the very least, this should be an svg. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist agreed on all points. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Aus Soldier crab[edit]

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

A Light-blue Soldier Crab, Mictyris longicarpus.
Apart from the size requirement (that can be overlooked), my main concern is the blurriness of the image. In my opinion, I find it to be a bit unrealistic and shady, and the floor looks weird. For me, it does not meet our standards anymore. I'll try to find a better candidate and bring it to FPC in a future.
Articles this image appears in
Mictyris longicarpus
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Light-blue_Soldier_Crab Promoted in 2006.
  • Delist — — ΛΧΣ21 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist for what appears to me to be jpeg artifacts on some of the appendages (claw on our right, it's left, and one of the legs on our left, its right) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist due to very low resolution, JPEG artifacts, and that the photo can presumably be easily replaced by a better one since the species seems to be quite common. dllu (t,c) 23:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. Something stronger than this would be needed for FP status. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Mediran (tc) 22:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Markham tract housing[edit]

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

1st: Markham tract housing: so similar it needs two FPs; which to keep?
2nd: Markham tract housing: so similar it needs two FPs; which to keep?
We need to delist one, otherwise this will get Meta very fast. Both of these are current featured pictures.
Articles this image appears in
Markham, Ontario, Tract housing, etc.
Previous nomination/s
1st: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Suburbs; 2nd: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Markham tract housing
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg (1st) —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg since the other one is featured on Commons and is tagged as a Commons POTD. The first should also be deleted from Commons. Want to take care of that, Crisco? But how is Meta involved here? Also, I've replaced one of the files in the deslist nom here, since they are not exactly identical but I agree that we don't need to feature both of them. --Pine 04:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg (1st) for reasons state above. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist as above (either, whichever the consensus is, preferably Can I also recommend that the closing admin replaces the various usages? J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I realize this is late, but consensus is clear here and the 1st one should be delisted per above. Chick Bowen 00:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You're only 11 minutes late, so considering how obvious of a case this is, I hope your vote counts. If for some reason the first image isn't delisted, it will just be renominated and be a waste of time for everyone. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was only 11 minutes--I just saw the red lettering. I wouldn't have even made anything of it if I'd known. Chick Bowen 01:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Delisted File:Markham-suburbs id.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

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

Current Featured PictureBarack Obama delivering a speech at the University of Southern California in support of California Proposition 87
Replacement – White House portrait of President Barack Obama
Delist and replace the current featured picture of Barack Obama with his White House portrait.
Articles in which this image appears
Barack Obama, Economic policy of Barack Obama
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Obama Portrait 2006.jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/President Barack Obama (2006 portrait)
--Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Delist & Replace as nominator. The current FP of Barack Obama only currently appears in 1 article and is of marginal EV. The replacement portrait is a much better portrait in almost every way. It has much higher EV and appears in multiple articles. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, no opinion on the replace. It's clear that the old image needs to be delisted- there's no particular EV for this image concerning Obama's energy policy, even if he happens to be making a speech on energy policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist but aren't delists supposed to go in the delist section below? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it was down there a few months ago, but not enough people voted. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should just start a new precedent, right now, in which delists are listed in with the other nominations. They might get more attention that way, and it's not like there are so many of them as to make the main list ungainly. On this image, weak delist (but closer may count me as delist if this ends as 4.5 delists and no keeps) per various previous nominations, don't replace, the new official portrait is pretty mediocre in my view: busy, flat, toothy, and weirdly composed, just short of traditional half-portrait length and with his head crammed up against the top of the frame. Chick Bowen 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm all for that new precedent. If this runs its course, I guess someone could just boldly remove the delist section and adjust the instructions at the top. We've talked about it enough times! J Milburn (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • See also Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple Swamphen down the page. Chick Bowen 01:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I never look at the delist section; it's mostly because I forget it's even there. I never look at the table of contents, just force of habit to skip to current noms, scroll through until I recognize an image, and be done. But would delists go here, even without a replace? Also, maybe the word "Delist:" should begin the title of every delist nom; at least something to make it stand out for those who do look at the TOC; also to hopefully refrain people who don't pay attention to the introductory information from writing "support beautiful photograph" accidentally. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist and Replace. The old image is just plain bad. Replacement is good. --WingtipvorteX PTT 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the image is here, I was just wondering, how can the official version be public domain and yet have the following requirement? --Muhammad(talk) 05:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

That's pure BS; if it is public domain, you can't put a restriction on it. That said, the PD release should serve as "permission of the White House Photo Office." --WingtipvorteX PTT 15:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It's like when you see those dump trucks that say "Not responsible for broken windshields". It's complete BS. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, don't replace. Current FP is clearly subpar. I would like the new image to go through the regular voting process and get scrutinized in its own for quality and license, without confusion of wanting to replace a lesser image.TCO (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sake barrels.jpg[edit]

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

"An excellent picture of beautifully-decorated sake barrels."
Promoted to FP in 2004 because everyone agreed with the nominator's statement, which I'm using as the caption. I don't disagree that it's good in appearance, but it definitely fails our current standards because of its size: FPs need to be "a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height", but this image is 1024x768.
Articles this image appears in
Itsukushima Shrine; it was taken there. List of Japanese dishes; it illustrates a type of Japanese beverage. 100 Landscapes of Japan (Heisei era); it illustrates one of the landscapes. Note that this isn't a fair representation of what uses this image — it was recently deleted on copyright grounds before being restored, so presumably it got removed from other pages that were using it. This delist nomination is completely unrelated to the copyright issues (make it related if you think it should be, but my motive for bringing it up is purely because of its small size), which you can find discussed in the "Missing image" section of the current revision of WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sake barrels
Nyttend (talk)
  • DelistNyttend (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I reuploaded this file from an offsite copy linked at commons:User talk:Fastily#File:Sake barrels.jpg, after the Commons instance was deleted. However, I have no idea if the copy is a full-size one. (It may well be, 2004 was a long time ago.) I'll ask Fastily if it was, and if not, if a full-size copy can be undeleted from Commons for us to use. — Scott talk 01:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Fastily has confirmed that this is the full-size image, so I guess I reluctantly have to say delist. — Scott talk 10:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Because this is not a place I've ever been before - is it usual to delist images that were selected under older standards when the standards change to become more stringent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist as this is still somewhat reproducible. If this were not I wouldn't mind the size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. Delisting on size has been controversial in the past (on the theory that we should give some precedence to the criteria at the time of nomination), but this has some chromatic aberration, and it's not well used (galleries, basically). Chick Bowen 17:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. I don't care about the size (it really doesn't impact usage in article of the encyclopedia.) It's way confusing though. Thought I was staring at some round Gateway boxes or something. The angle seems off also. Having a bunch of barrels instead of one.TCO (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Eustrombus gigas 01.jpg[edit]

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

A queen conch shell, the lip of which has been cut or filed to make the shell look more attractive to the tourist trade
This shell is not entirely in its natural state; the cut or filed lip is an artificial modification that is commonly carried out before the shell is sold, and is meant to make the shell look more attractive. The two thumbnails I have included here show how the lip should really look in an intact shell (much more extended and frilly). The lip is thin at the edge and usually gets chipped a lot while it is being collected and shipped, hence the trimming.
Sea shell (Trinidad & Tobago 2009).jpg
Live Queen Conch, Guantanamo.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Lobatus gigas
Previous nomination/s
Original nomination,

A delist mention

Invertzoo (talk)
Yes as far as my knowledge extends, all the rest of the shells in Zell's FPs are fine. However, there is a problem with File:Pulmonata.jpg which is not a Zell image. The illustration in that file is quite pretty to look at, but the portrayal of the snails and slugs in it is scientifically quite inaccurate! I suppose I'd better file a delist nomination for that one too. Invertzoo (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist, assuming that Inverzoo's explanation is correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist I trust Invertzoo immensely on this kind of issue. --99of9 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Providing the different views (read how captioned in article, please) is a very helpful graphical feature for explanation.TCO (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist If it's not the real thing, it's not the real thing. Thanks for lending your expertise, Invertzoo. Cowtowner (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Purple Swamphen[edit]

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

Porphyrio porphyrio, or purple swamphen, in Victoria, Australia
Superseded by File:Purple Swamp Hen Wollongong.jpg, now featured. Little-used. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Purple Swamphen for more discussion.
Articles this image appears in
Way down the page in Arrocampo Reservoir
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Purple Swamphen - Pukeko02.jpg (kept, but the new FP did not yet exist)
Chick Bowen
  • DelistChick Bowen 17:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist JKadavoor Jee 05:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist: Little used, bird is covered by grass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist per discussion in replacement FPC. --99of9 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Tomer T (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist.TCO (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Pulmonata.jpg[edit]

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

An artistic (but not scientific) illustration from 1893 of European land snails and slugs, also showing some food plants and fungi, eggs, and a beetle predator
It has very little scientific value at all. The artist drew the snails and slugs so "loosely" that they are not well portrayed, and one of the species is not a pulmonate anyway. The main problem is that the images do not very closely resemble the actual snails and slugs that are supposed to be being depicted, and because of that this image is quite misleading scientifically, although in other respects it is arguably cute and charming.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Has quite a bit of history (see file usage). Got promoted here picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpg Was nominated once before for delisting [14]
Invertzoo (talk)
  • DelistInvertzoo (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The previous delist makes interesting reading. I think this would have been delisted if it had had more comment. After thinking about it for a bit I would say delist; not evidently notable as a work of art, and the problems Invertzoo points out have actually long been known. Chick Bowen 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: I moved this nom page to bring it in line with standard delist practice per the autogenerated titles created by Template:FPCdel. Chick Bowen 01:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: If the file does end up being delisted, would someone who has Commons rights please change the name of the file to "European and slugs and snails" or something similar, otherwise people will keep adding this to articles on Pulmonata in this and other Wikipedias. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The original title is "Land Molluscs", something like "Land Molluscs - Royal Natural History.jpg" would be best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist: As InvertZoo says, it is an arguably cute and charming picture, but is scientifically incorrect and should not be used in articles. JoJan (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. Too busy.TCO (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. I absolutely love the picture- I'd love it on a mug or something. However, I have to agree that the EV is limited. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If this was better used - for the illustrator, for example, I'd be opposing the delist, but as it is, despite its artistic merit, I think Invertzoo has it right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Delist: File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg[edit]

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

Mushroom, identified as Tremella mesenterica, which we're not sure of
Possibly misindentified, and as such no longer used. See also User_talk:Sasata#File:Tremella_mesenterica.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tremella mesenterica.jpg
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist. I do think it's a stunning photograph, but without a positive ID it's not really appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Unless there is a confirmation of the species. Mattximus (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it looks more like a Dacrymyces palmatusDeonyi (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe I had help from two mycologists at the university with the identification. But it was the better part of five years ago now, I don't remember exactly. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Leeedit.jpg[edit]

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

Confederate General Robert E. Lee
Compared even with other Civil War era photographs, this image appears to have a number of issues both in terms of brightness and in focus. There are several other images of Lee around, and I have to think that if a restorer of Adam Cuerden's caliber were to work on one, we'd be able to turn this from a delist to a delist and replace
Articles this image appears in
Robert E. Lee, Military of the Confederate States of America, List of United States Military Academy alumni, and Confederate States of America
Previous nomination/s
Sven Manguard Wha?
  • DelistSven Manguard Wha? 23:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist Wow, I'm so used to looking at great candidates it's rather shocking to see one of such low resolution! Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • This was promoted in 2007. A lot of Featured content was promoted in 2007 (pictures, articles, portals) and very little of it holds up to modern standards. Six years can do that. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Well in that case, you should place their delist nom too. Also Delist for this image. Herald talk with me 14:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist '''Johncy''' (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Question This image is obviously created from a very old photograph. Is the low resolution of this image due to the inherent low resolution of the source material? If so, and this is the best quality of this image (and subject) that will ever be available, then I don't think it should necessarily be delisted. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The low resolution is due to the scan of the image not the source material itself. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This image isn't just a little bit off, it's bad. It was either bad when it was taken, bad when it was developed, or did not age well before being digitized, but the issues are too severe for the "but this is really old" clause. There are plenty of civil-war era images that are fundamentally sound, to which that clause can be considered. This isn't one of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist I generally detest the delist because it's old nominations but this was bad quality back in 2007 and there are many better pictures in the article that are both of high quality and better represent the subject so this should be a no brainer. Cat-fivetc ---- 02:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist definitely -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Tecumseh sherman.jpg[edit]

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

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

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Delist as another identical object was promoted to FP as part of a set.
This file was recently promoted as part of a complete set of Fractional currency. The object is in better condition and the file is higher quality than the delist candidate to the right.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg
Godot13 (talk)
  • Delist — (the image creator and the image nominator have both been notified) Godot13 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist; seems reasonable to me, but I am of course open to being persuaded otherwise. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist - Makes sense, and this scan is of slightly lower resolution anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist reasonable. Mattximus (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Delist pretty clear cut case, could be speedy closed. --ELEKHHT 11:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Godot13 has done a commendable job scanning banknotes from the Smithsonian collection. There is a slight difference between the two banknotes, the back of "US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863" was printed by the American Bank Note Company (the ABC in the lower right.)The banknote from the Smithsonian was printed by the US government. See Blake, George Herbert. (1908). United States Paper Money. Pages 32 to 41. [15] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
SWTPC6800 is correct. While these are they same type of note, they do represent two slightly different varieties.-Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This image is a type Fr#: 1230, Godot13's image is a type Fr#: 1231. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a monogram version, type Fr#: 1230, the other image is a type Fr#: 1231. The Fractional currency (United States) article explains the difference but does not show an example. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment I can see your point on this, however the picture does not appear in any article at the moment, and that is a criterion for inclusion as a featured picture, is it not? Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment It was in the Postal currency in September 2013 that was merged into Fractional Currency. I will leave it up to Godot13, the major editor of Fractional Currency, to decide if this image should illustrate the American Bank Note Co. monogram. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I understand what you are saying, however the Featured List Fractional currency (United States) is built around the Smithsonian Institution's collection. All the notes are from the National Numismatic Collection. It is intended to be a complete type set (not inclusive of all varieties which would number well over 150). The ABNC monogram is represented on some of the other First Issue notes of other denominations.--Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Delist: Grizzly bear[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 22:50:54 (UTC)

While the colours are very nice, the image quality and encyclopedic value are low. This wouldn't have a chance of passing today, and doesn't particularly contribute to any articles.
Articles this image appears in
List of mammals of Alaska, List of mammals of Canada
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grizzly Denali edit.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Grizzly Denali edit.jpg
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep — The quality seems impressive to me, and this is not an account of the colors- I could care less about that aspect. However, you may have a perspective that I might understand, if you explained it. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist — The animal is indeed not clearly visible. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist — Its a pretty good pic but it only shows half the animal and there is unfocused brush in the way which is distracting. There are a lot of featured mammals photos that were nominated along time ago and are not up to standards and are not used in articles. MatGTAM (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree, this is not a particularly rare animal so I don't think it would be good to keep a low resolution image with half of the animal obscured. Mattximus (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Woah, delist. I'm surprised this passed even back in the day, frankly--the brush is clearly blurred artificially (you can tell first because there should be line of brush in focus parallel to the bear, and there isn't, and second because there'd be no way to get so narrow a depth of field without being right up next to the bear), and it fails criterion 8. Chick Bowen 04:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Replace: Me109[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 10:43:20 (UTC)

Black levels of current image are poor
Black levels need adjustement. Already done but has been reverted.
Articles this image appears in
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Me109
(Hohum @)
  • Replace — (Hohum @) 10:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It's in the revert list for the current image. (Hohum @) 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it should be called a Bf 109. Sca (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Erm, that still has most of the same issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm just not seeing the technical quality that people saw when this was promoted in 2008. Then again, there are a lot of things that were promoted in 2008 across all of the featured processes that fall well short of the 2014 criteria and expectations. I'm not sure what to make of Dapi89's oppose in the original nomination, but I do feel that it is something that is worth taking into consideration as well. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. I'm with Sven. Minimum size and so on notwithstanding, I don't think there's really any way we should be featuring a photo of anything as large as a plane that's so small. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per J. Milburn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist as per 2008. I was a wise thing back then, and I agree with myself entirely. I hope if Sven Manguard reads the thread it will make sense to him. I'm glad he thinks the points I made back then are still worth considering. Dapi89 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Dapi89: Oh, no, I understand what your argument from 2008 is. When I said I'm not sure what to make of it, I meant that I'm not sure if, assuming the image had no other problems, I would have opposed the image based on your argument. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That is a shame. Deciding on image quality alone with little regard for what is shown is incomprehensible to me. Each to his own. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 10:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Sleeping koala[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 17:43:38 (UTC)

A sleeping koala
We currently have four separate FPs of koalas; as well as the one nominated here, we have File:Phascolarctos cinereus Bonorong.jpg, File:Koala and joey.jpg and File:Koala climbing tree.jpg. I nominate this one as it is not in use in any articles, and the koala article is a well-illustrated FA- the images used have been carefully chosen.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Original, replacement with a crop
J Milburn (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Strelitzia[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 11:40:51 (UTC)

Flower of Strelitzia sp.
The previous delist was unsuccessful as it had four delist votes instead of five. This image is of a very low quality, and the EV is limited, due to the confusing composition and the fact that the species is apparently unidentified.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Strelitzia, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Strelitzia larger.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Strelitzia
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per previous nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per previous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist --P e z i (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per previous..But can you find any to replace??? Its been a POTD..that's why... Herald 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Having been a POTD has no impact on the future FP status of an image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2014 at 17:16:42 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell, William Taft and James Bryce. On the left, Archibald Butt speaks to an unknown male.
I don't see any EV. Lot of notable people plus a high resolution does not a FP make- this image is not particularly visually interesting (the composition isn't exactly perfect...) and, more importantly, the meeting seems unimportant: the meeting between these men, nor their appearance at whatever gathering this was taken at, receives no mention in any of the articles. This should have been delisted last time around, but wasn't (0.5 delists short...).
Articles this image appears in
links to the article(s) that use this image
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg 2
J Milburn (talk)
  • DelistJ Milburn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist also per nom. The EV is poor, and this is an uninteresting photo Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist This is something that has never gotten a single keep vote in a delist review; it's probably time to go. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist ---Never, never and never I'm going for hitting a support for this one...The herald 11:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Delist and Replace: Taj Mahal[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2014 at 15:37:44 (UTC)

Replacement 2
The image is one of the most used Indian image but low quality one. The resolution is very low when compared to other monument FPs. The replacement is better in all other aspects.
Articles this image appears in
Taj Mahal, Agra, 100+
Previous nomination/s
The herald
  • Delist or Delist and Replace as nominator — The herald 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Replacing an FP with an obviously inferior image is insulting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case, you can hit for a delist. The image is par below current FP status. The herald 09:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
When you have a candidate that is better then I'll consider it in a D&R. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Geisha-kyoto-2004-11-21.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2014 at 06:37:03 (UTC)

Two maiko (geisha apprentices) in Kyoto
Not a bad picture, but blatantly fails the FP criteria. The size of the picture is only 872x1052 - way below the minimum 1500x1500, and since the picture hardly is historical nor unique (maiko and geisha move about in full sight in the hanamachi of Kyoto practically every day of the year), there are no excuses for this. Is also not of a very high technical standard - grainy, blurry when zoomed up and only the first maiko is somewhat in focus. There's also some clipping in all three RGB channels, especially blue and green. Here's an example of another free image (CC BY ND) better showing off the make-up: [16]
Articles this image appears in
Geisha, nape
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nape Makeup
JPNEX (talk)
  • DelistJPNEX (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think delisting solely on size is a worthwhile endeavor, but your other arguments may have weight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not what's happening here, but what makes you think it wouldn't be a "worthwhile endeavor" if it indeed were? I don't see anything like this mentioned in any of the rules/criteria. Also, the very fact that a picture like this has FP status might make others less inclined to upload FP-quality pictures of the same subject.JPNEX (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said that's what is happening here, did I? I only brought it up because you spent half the nomination statement talking about resolution. Regarding the "worthwhile endeavor" comment, although a grandfather clause is not included at WP:FP?, discussions such as this have tended to be against delisting exclusively on the basis of resolution. I think we've got a case where such a nomination was tried as well, but can't think of it off hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't mean to say you were ... damn words. Thank you for the clarification, I think it'd be a good idea to mention this in the delist rules/recommendations/whatever. JPNEX (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be worth bringing this to WT:FPC, but delists are so uncommon I doubt it would get much traction. That being said, delist on technical aspects and the fact that this can be reproduced reasonably easily. Shame we have so few good pictures of Japanese culture... (Departures is really suffering for it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. I like the composition, but would it pass today? No. Can we reasonably expect better to come along? Yes, I think so. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The community has already agreed that increased resolution requirements at FP are not to be imposed retrospectively. Indeed, that was almost a condition for some people for allowing the resolution requirements to be increased. I don't think "would it pass today" or "could we reasonably expect better" are valid arguments for delist. Importantly, since this picture has been in-use and FP for eight years: that's more than enough time for someone to take a better one if it was so easy. Perhaps the expectation of better is not quite so realistic. This is a good photo in terms of composition, colour and EV. Other than small size, I fail to see the claimed technical deficiencies. -- Colin°Talk 11:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The question here is whether this meets the FP criteria. I can see absolutely no utility in keeping pictures featured which do not meet the criteria- if you do, then I think you owe an explanation. When I ask whether it would pass today, I'm asking whether I suspect community consensus is that it meets the criteria. (As for "reasonably expect better"- I'm not sure I need to defend my objection to FPs which could be significantly improved upon.) J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See my comment on previous picture and Hysteresis. It is simply not true that the purpose of Delist is to rejudge old pictures against todays standards as though it was a fresh nomination. If there are better pictures, then upload them and put them in the article. -- Colin°Talk 12:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, there's a big difference between "it was promoted relatively recently under the slightly-more-permissive older criteria", and "it's tiny, but you can't argue that's a problem". The agreement was that we shouldn't delist the things that the most recent resolution increase put under, not that we should put resolution off the the table. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the two girls in the photo might actually be fake maiko ("maiko for a day" tourists), if the image's description page is correct. There are no ochaya near the Golden Pavilion and real maiko are very unlikely to just be hanging around in the moust touristy area in Kyoto. See this discussion (in Japanese): [17] a Yahoo Answers thread where the question is where one can find maiko dress-up studios near the Golden Pavilion (the answer is that there are none nearby, but several of the studios do offer dress-up+taxi tours there). JPNEX (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist This is simply way, way too small, plus there's issues as to whether it's authentic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree with Colin, to an extent. We did agree not to judge existing FPs against current resolution requirements, but I think when the image is of low resolution and is no longer representative of our best FPs or otherwise has issues relating to accuracy and EV, then I think we can certainly consider delisting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Sure, I will be the fifth person for this delist. I am not thrilled with the quality, and plenty else has already been said above. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Geisha_Kyoto_Gion.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2014 at 08:11:52 (UTC)

A geiko entertaining a guest in Gion
Simply put, a poor photogaph that does not at all meet the FP criteria.
  1. Resolution is way too small - only 912 × 1,000 pixels (cp FP minimum 1500x1500).
  2. Composition is simply bad at best (the client is cut off in half, objects on the table likewise). The background is uninteresting (one could for example have hoped for a shoji if they're in an ochaya or ryotei).
  3. The picture is taken with a harsh flash throwing shadows on the wall...
  4. ...but it is still extremely grainy, noisy and lacking in sharpness. There can simply be no discussion that this picture obviously flaunts the two first FP criteria.
  5. What about encyclopedic value then? Well, it certainly has quite a bit of value, but the picture is atypical and certainly not the best representation of what it's like being entertained by a geisha. A geisha might very well light a cigarette for a client, but cigar smoking is very unusual indeed in Japan. It is also very atypical for the client to be foreigner, and a young one at that - this subtracts EV, not adds to it, as it's not a good representation of how things typically would happen (the perfect client would be a red-faced (from drinking) and smiling 50+ Japanese businessman).
  6. More on representativeness: a geisha/geiko/maiko most typically entertains by 1) talking and, importantly, laughing at what the client says 2) playing games 3) drinking and pouring alcohol (assuming we treat the dancing, singing and shamisen playing etc. as something separate, of course). A picture showing a geisha doing any of these activities would be a much better representation of "geisha entertainment." If the picture quality were better, I think these perhaps minor "representativeness" issues could definitely be forgiven, but I just want to make it painstakingly clear how I think the picture falls short.
  7. Is the picture then, at lest, somehow unique? - No. The original nominator made several false claims in the nomination, among other things that these men (the photographer and the client) might be the only Americans ever allowed into the closed world of geisha, which is patently untrue. There are services in both Japanese and English (check google) who can set up any tourist for "banquets" exactly like the one depicted. As a matter of fact, I could myself set this up for any Wikipedia photographer interested.
  8. There are also better and more interesting pictures available online - for example these 2 from 1955 on Flickr, available under a CC BY-NC-SA license: [18][19] and this on already on wiki, but not in the English-language article: [20] (though I wouldn't say these are FP quality either). Non-free examples here that better show what geisha entertainment is really about: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
nom, previous delist nom
JPNEX (talk)
  • DelistJPNEX (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per above (though, just to be clear, the CC-BY-NC-SA license is non-free, as far as Wikipedia is concerned). J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have read the nomination and previous delist. I've also read comments about obtaining/using realistic pictures on the article talk page. Although the image isn't great technical quality, it has good illustrative value and the composition is absolutely fine. The issue of whether such an image of a genuine geisha entertaining a client is hard to obtain is relevant for judging if this can be a mitigating factor wrt technical issues. All I see above is an opinionated rant, frankly, and not supported by any evidence. The most important evidence is whether a better picture of a genuine geisha entertaining a client can be found and gains acceptance in the article. In the last eight years, nobody has done so. -- Colin°Talk 12:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "All I see above is an opinonated rant"..? I don't think that's true. Also, "the picture isn't very good, but there is nothing better" is a good argument for keeping it in the article, for sure, but not for keeping it an FP. Is it really fair to call this picture one of Wikipedia's best? JPNEX (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Colin: I have to agree with JPNEX- the nomination statement seems to be well-argued, while you seem to dismiss it without comment. I also agree that "we don't have any better" is not a good argument in support of featuring (or not defeaturing) an image. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The rules for delisting are not "would this pass FP today" and never have been. See Hysteresis. Nor have "we could do better" ever, ever, been a reason for delist. And anyway, as I demonstrate, no we haven't done better for eight years. We don't delist based on speculation. The example images listed are neither free nor are we sure they are genuine geisha. Please read the various discussions I mentioned. And you will see we simply have one person's strong opinion vs another as to whether this image is hard to obtain. There are lots of current FPs that would not pass today and we have no intention of revisiting them all on a regular basis. Some of JPNEX opinions are plain wrong: the composition is very good and resolution is never a reason for delist. But you will note, here, I have not voted keep. -- Colin°Talk 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Not a good or very useful photo Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist The quality is of a low technical standard, even by 2005 standards. The lighting, color, and especially the composition are all off. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per my arguments in the other geisha delist nom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily a better photo (the maiko has her back turned towards the camera, for once) but here's one I took yesterday of a maiko entertaining a guest at a ochaya also in Gion: [29].JPNEX (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree it's not really a better photo, but I liked some of your other geisha/maiko photos and some of them may be useful for Wikipedia. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think several of the images in his feed would probably be featureable. The bonsai is nice, although having the entire tree would have been preferable, and the children sumo wrestling would have a chance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 08:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Delist: File:Energy Arc (central electrode of a Plasma Lamp).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2014 at 01:07:16 (UTC)

Energy Arc (central electrode of a Plasma Lamp)
Unused, yet again. The previous delist nomination was for the same reason. Plasma globe already has several high-quality images
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
nom; The previous delist nomination
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Honestly, if it followed the tendril to the end, I'd probably readd it to the article, but, as it is, it doesn't add enough new content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Jee 09:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist: Not used, reinstatement already tried. Julia\talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Delisted Armbrust The Homunculus 04:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Delist: File:Socks cat 1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2014 at 15:49:33 (UTC)

See this discussion at commons. Photographer appears to be incorrectly listed here as Barbara Kinney, a White House photographer. More likely, copyright belongs to an AP photographer according to the file's metadata, attribution on other articles (e.g. [30], [31]), and that the photo can be found under photo ID 940319058 (and others) at
Articles this image appears in
Socks (cat), List of cats, several others.
Previous nomination/s
I, JethroBT drop me a line
  • DelistI, JethroBT drop me a line 15:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be careful about trusting such things: it's not at all uncommon for image libraries to include public domain works and happily charge for their use. Credit is given to Barbara Kinney here: - so let's not rush to this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Good point. I've emailed Marcy Nighswander, the AP photographer credited on their site, to ask if she is indeed the photographer. Incidentally, it looks like there are many photos by many different photographers of socks on the podium. So given it was taken in 1994, it might be that Marcy doesn't actually remember if this image is actually hers or just one similar to it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, I think we're going to have to delist. I received a response from Marcy and she's confirmed that she is the photographer:
        Thanks for asking. I shot the photo as a staff photographer at The Associated Press. They own the copyright. Barb, a White House staff photographer, did not shoot it.
        Marcy Nighswander
  • Delist per above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist, a blasted shame. Of course, of Marcy were willing to donate this under a free license... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • She's not able to. As per her email, she doesn't own the copyright, AP does. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, right. Missed that. Blast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question regarding procedure: If the image was found to be non-free and deleted on Commons, wouldn't that automatically remove its FP status here? I understand that it helps inform editors, but isn't this Delist discussion rather redundant? -- (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Kinda. It wouldn't automatically happen. We'd get a red-link everywhere that it's used. Better to be aware of it and do it procedurally. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. Slightly worrying that this has happened, given that the likes of AP photographs (due to the troublesome NFCC#2) are some of the most problematic non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • In the end, USA Today are the ones at fault. I'm not sure of the law, but think that it's the same as unknowingly being sold stolen property: you might have to give it back, but... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Black-fronted Dotterel[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2014 at 05:41:57 (UTC)

Black-fronted Dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), Fyshwick Sewage Treatment Plant, Canberra, Australia
Not used in any articles, replaced with current FP File:Elseyornis melanops - Chiltern.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Elseyornis melanops - Fyshwick Sewage Treatment Plant.jpg
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Asian arowana[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 00:19:47 (UTC)

A headshot of an arwana
Quality is really rough. High noise, a bit of what appears to be motion blur on the scales.
Articles this image appears in
Asian arowana etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scleropages formosus, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Arowana.jpg
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist gazhiley 12:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist --Any replacements Chris?? --The Herald : here I am 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Not yet, no. Those are apparently really expensive fish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Simply because it does not show the whole fish. Mattximus (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Airfield traffic[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 14:38:19 (UTC)

A line drawing showing an aircraft pattern
Unused. Low technical quality compared to our other SVGs.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Airport traffic pattern.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist (perfunctory). howcheng {chat} 16:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist--Let it rather go..--The Herald : here I am 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist I'm highly suspicious that this is generalizable to many flight situations, but anyway it's not used in an article. Mattximus (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 15:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Delist: Passchendaele[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 January 2015 at 00:01 UTC

Before and after view of the village of Passchendaele during World War I
While certainly striking at thumbnail resolution, this image completely lacks quality. 500 × 674 px resolution, and blurry even then, incredibly overprocessed - compare [32] - and quite simply, not amongst Wikipedia's best images. It's time to delist it.
Articles this image appears in
Battle of Passchendaele, Second Battle of Passchendaele, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Village_of_Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Village of Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Despite the technical issues, I still find this high enough in EV, not to mention impossible to replace (unless I am proven otherwise), to keep sorry. You can still see the stark contrast between the two images demostrating the utter devistation to the village from the war. The fact that this town still exists to this day is incredible. gazhiley 11:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • We could replace it with the original from the IWM, we could replace it with another thing - but there is no inherent right for a bad image to be an FP just because it illustrates something interesting. Keeping this is saying that we will settle, that a really crap image does not deserve any attempt to find better - it's good enough. That's severely wrong and counterproductive, in my opinion. People, seeing a featured picture, stop looking for better. That's a major problem, and it's why we need to be a little ruthless about FPs from 2004, that wouldn't have any chance whatsoever at FPC in the last seven years. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair point, but until someone provides a better version I still stick to my opinion. I for one found this very interesting, and read the articles it is connected to, which is essence is what the FP process is about... And, as a side point, please don't use a red font to try and emphasise your opinion - I for one respect anyone's viewpoint, irrespective of colour of the font... It's unneccessary to use it... struck as red font now changed to black. gazhiley 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Yeah, size isn't everything, but we've got two images in a file that doesn't even approach our minimum/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a great picture, with great EV, but maybe not quite a FP. Hafspajen (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist Agree with the high EV, however the picture quality is very, very low. Those photographs were taken with higher resolution, even if they have been destroyed, I would suspect a better scan is available out there. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree with the above. We can recognise that an image is valuable and striking without having to call it FP-worthy- this seems to be a case of that sort. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Even though EV is important for any FP, there are other facotrs such as image quality which are obviously lacking in this image - DUCK404 a (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - National Names 2000 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Hydrogen 2[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:19:55 (UTC)

Hydrogen in a vial, glowing
Unused, again. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases; Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Hydrogen
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Nitrogen[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:21:28 (UTC)

Nitrogen in a vial, glowing
Unused. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Delist: 4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D.gif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 06:35:31 (UTC)

A four stroke engine diagram
Replaced universally with File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D Small.gif, as that one actually moves.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Picture peer review/4 Stroke Engine
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Four Stroke Engine
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. The animated gif is more informative; having been replaced, this one isn't used in any articles. —Bruce1eetalk 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist – Ditto. Sca (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistBammesk (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistYann (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Delist:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 02:09:40 (UTC)

The Clock Tower of the Palace of Westminster, London - often mistakenly called Big Ben
Replacement image of the tower
Unused. Replaced by File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - May 2007.jpg, by the same photographer.
Articles this image appears in
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg
 — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Delist —  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delist' Agreed, no need to keep both FPs. I didn't know there was still a duplicate. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The 2007 image isn't an FP, apparently. This never passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, good point. That's the problem with duplicates, or virtual duplicates - sometimes they really complicate matters. Some people prefer one, some people prefer the other but support for any one version is diluted by choice. Looks like that nomination failed because support was split between both, and yet the one that people almost half of the people supported (the one being delisted) is now the one that isn't being used. I wonder if the better solution is simply to use this image in one or more articles instead then. It's so similar to the version being that it's a trivial change to make. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistSca (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist (for now, neutral on replacing). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistSagaciousPhil - Chat 07:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hold on. I think, as per my comments above, the more sensible proposition is to decide whether this image or this image should be used in the various articles that relate to it. Realistically, it should be a delist and replace nomination rather than a straight delist because its 'successor' is being used, and only failed to pass because nobody could agree on which image was better, rather than because nobody thought either should be featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I should have, yes, but I doubt 2 days will be enough to reach a consensus on that. We can try, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • It would be simple enough to veto this nomination then, by re-adding this image into one or more articles. ;-) There'd be a persuasive argument in favour of it, since it's a FP and the other image is not... I don't mean to making a pain of myself but it seems like delisting is counterproductive. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • D&R - Rather prefer the colors of the 2007 image, and it is used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • D&R – Happy to be guided by Chris and Diliff's opinions as to the correct procedure. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • D&R, but I have to say on reflection that I prefer the texture of the original image and would equally support adding the 'original' image into an article, I don't think there would be significant opposition to that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I prefer the slightly off-corner shot for its sense of depth. Thus I'd say: first choice keep, second choice d&r. Chick Bowen 22:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep? – I agree with Diliff. I did notice the texture (and depth) on second glance, but I'm confused about voting D&R if we're keeping the original. Sca (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Unused" is a sufficient reason in itself for delist. Doesn't seem to be a quorum to promote the new one; can nominate it for FP seperately; however, an unused image cannot be an FP, that's a strict criterion that no vote can overturn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. I admit I lost track of this nomination so I didn't do what I was planning to do.. But as per the votes, we didn't vote to delist. We voted to delist and replace - only a single vote was for delist only. The equivalent ('replacement' image) is used in many articles and it would have been trivial to replace it in the article with the original - in many ways, as per the discussion, it is a superior image. I think you've jumped the gun here, although I concede that a lot of time passed without any action. I think it would have been more prudent though, to have had a quick quorum about what to do with it before going for a straight delist, given the discussion above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Diliff: I agree this is a tough decision, but you must agree that if the image isn't used, it cannot, as in, there is a blanket ban on it being a featured image. I'd prefer to do this as D&R, but it's a vote short of "R", and I don't think we should push a promotion through without cause. This was open for over a month. There was plenty of time for the original to be added to articles; that it was not rather precludes it remaining an FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, but you know how sometimes discussions and nominations stall and people forget about them when they no longer show up on watchlists. That doesn't mean we just close them and move on, we prod people and try to find a solution that best suits the situation. This was a bureaucratic close but not a sensible one IMO. If it was genuinely not being used because it was replaced by something better, fine. But the image in use is arguably not better, and I doubt there would be any arguments in swapping it in at least one of the major articles. Yes, it didn't happen in time, but that's just because I forgot, not because it couldn't be done. Hence a prod would have been the better action. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to reverse if:
  1. The image is used in at least a few relevant articles
  2. It stays there for at least one week.
Until it's stable in articles, I don't see much point arguing. You have still not added it to a single article. Usage is not an optional criterion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm only arguing about the procedural aspect of closing it before the actions agreed upon in the nomination (the replace) had taken place, not whether usage is an optional criterion. Anything can be reversed, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think it should have happened in the first place without at least some poking of the involved parties. Let it stand, what's done is done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
While I agree there should have been prodding, I'd also say that should have happened when the nom was suspended. One shouldn't need to prod a month into a 10-day nomination before closing it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Delist: El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 23:52:01 (UTC)

El Castillo, a Mesoamerican step-pyramid that dominates the center of the Chichen Itza archaeological site in the Mexican state of Yucatán
Replaced in all the higher EV positions with File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg
Articles this image appears in
Mexico, Tourism in Mexico
Previous nomination/s
nom, delist
 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Delist: A Negress[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

A Negress is a paining by Thomas Eakins.
Only used in a list article, which doesn't discuss the painting significantly and therefore it has minimal EV.
Articles this image appears in
List of works by Thomas Eakins
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A negress
Armbrust The Homunculus
  • DelistArmbrust The Homunculus 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist – Per Armbrust. Sca (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Not a bad scan, but agree with the minimal EV. Mattximus (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - We've gotten higher standards for paintings since this was passed. I've tried hunting down enough information for this to get an article, but I failed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 04:37:45 (UTC)

Chateau Wood Ypres 1917
800 × 769 pixels is out of Featured picture standard even if that is a historic picture.
Articles this image appears in
Trench warfare, Australian Army during World War I, 4th Division (Australia), Battle of Passchendaele, Hooge in World War I, Duckboards, I ANZAC Corps, List of World War I memorials and cemeteries in Flanders, Military history of Australia during World War I, Claud Jacob, Rudolph Lambart, 10th Earl of Cavan, Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Chateau Wood Ypres 1917
Alborzagros (talk)
  • DelistAlborzagros (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - We haven't historically delisted FPs for simple number of pixels, and we certainly shouldn't hold a ten-year-old FP to today's standards for pixel count. Short of actually having a higher resolution version available, I don't think we should delist for that reason. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, possibly replace @Crisco 1492: However, we have delisted for having a far better quality one available. This is a low-quality, blurry hackjob of File:Chateauwood.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Problem with that image is that the source is incorrect; that's not the same version on the War Memorial's webpage. But it's enough to knock out my "keep" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Crisco 1492: Checking the history, that source seems to have been "helpfully" added after the fact by someone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, leaning delist This is one of the iconic images of the Australian Imperial Force (Australia's main combat force of World War I), which helps to explain why it's so heavily used. But I agree that this version isn't of FP standard in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace, if possible. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think I may personally disagree with the consensus view about delisting old FPs, but, here, that's a moot point, as better is possible. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist and replace, if possible. --Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Lowering the flag on Zuikaku[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 00:49:58 (UTC)

Lowering the flag on Zuikaku
Excessively low resolution combined with very poor quality of reproduction. Well below featureable quality, despite its importance.
Articles this image appears in
1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy), Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku, Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zuikaku sinking
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • DelistAdam Cuerden (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment Considering the rarity of pictures depicting the Japanese side of the war, I feel the historical value of this picture outweighs the negatives at the present time (Few of the available Japanese pictures are of great quality anyway.) Is there a replacement image available? I would gladly support a delist-replace. Dusty777 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the insistence on delist-replace in these things is productive. While rare, I'm not convinced these are so rare that a confusing composition, very low-resolution, extremely low-quality and heavily-damaged reproduction, and poor documentation at the file page are all overcome.
Now I don't mind if an image is a little under resolution, but 740 × 529 is too low to reproduce at much more than postcard size - and the low quality means it won't look particularly good even then. This simply isn't amongst our best images.Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the quality of this photo, you are surely right, Adam. But are there reasonable alternatives in better shape? We need to check first before voting. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any obvious replacements, and I did a few searches to see what I could find, but that shouldn't matter - it encourages the searching out of images if there aren't featured ones already, and strongly discourages it if there isn't. For example, one of the other images I found when lookign through the older images was an Eisenhower image, of which I did find a higher resolution version. I suspect, had it not been featured, and thus taken off the search for many, that a higher-res version existed would have been learned long ago. I think a good criteria is: if every other website on the subject has images about as good, about as high resolution, and about as sharp, what is the point of drawing attention to the image by calling it featured? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
All right, Adam. Delist then. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that the reason we pick Featured pictures was... To show which pictures contribute the highest amount of value to Wikipedia articles, not based off of how much a picture, or similar pictures are used across the internet.... Am I interpreting your statement correctly Adam? (Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll only bite once.) Dusty777 00:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - I will agree with the nominator. Presumably the original photograph still exists and could get a better scan with some restoration. Mattximus (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist as above. I am not convinced that the rarity can outweigh the huge technical problems. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Does a higher resolution and better quality version actually exist? The comments on the image's composition are a bit confusing: think about the circumstances this photo was taken in! - the carrier was listing by a truly alarming level (compare the deck to the horizon), the photographer would have been fearing for his life, and it shows a pretty remarkable ceremony by the crew. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • A large (24 Mb) tiff file of a similar scene is available at [33]. I imagine that a tiff of this photo is also available there (but can't find it...) Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
And that's MUCH higher quality. Not perfect, but you can at least do something with that. I think we've proven my point. =) Thanks, Nick! I'll get on that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Searching Zuikaku finds this image pretty quickly: Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Great work Adam - for some reason my search for the same term didn't find it! If anyone is interested in restoring the image, it would be worthwhile given its very strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Which of the two, though? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Both have lots of EV, but I'd recommend the current image (eg, [34]) - there are less arms in the way and the tilt of the ship is more apparent. Alternately, the pair would make a great dual FP nomination ;) By the way, I'm moving to delist as it's clear that a much superior version is possible. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Pillar coral[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 12:04:24 (UTC)

One of the last of the 2004 featured pictures, and with some reason, however, we simply have a lot better available, for example, File:Dendrogyra cylindrus (pillar coral) (San Salvador Island, Bahamas) 1 (15513345363).jpg
Articles this image appears in
Coral, Coral reef, Pillar coral Replaced with better image.
Previous nomination/s
Predates standard FP nominations. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Pillar coral
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • Delist Could possibly replace. — Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • D&R if possible. The colours are beautiful. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Tremonist: I'm just not quite sure if the other image should be separately nominated if they're this different. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, sure, Adam. Then this has to happen in two steps: Delist first, new nomination thereafter. --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • DelistSca (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. I agree that a separate nomination would be required for the other image. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Am I the only one reminded of an old science museum exhibit? HereToHelp (talk to me)
  • Delist - Godot13 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Human skeleton redux[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 21:59:20 (UTC)

Not an accurate image of a human skeleton with numerous stylistic inconsistencies.
Also proposed for delisting.
Not an accurate depiction as explained below. Stylistically inconsistent and messy.
This image is an inaccurate depiction of a human skeleton. It is still of "high" quality but we should not be having a featured image that is not accurate. Previous delisting nom here but per this failed good image nomination, the winds may have changed with regard to the necessary standards of accuracy for images.
Here are my and Paul_012's list of concerns:
  • Skeleton has very broad shoulders vs hips
  • Legs are shown in valgus position, not accurate
  • Knee joint bones are huge compared with leg.
  • Femur is just as thick as the tibia (not true)
  • The cervical vertebrae too thick.
  • The triangle below the clavicle unnaturally big.
  • The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature
  • Distal third of the clavicle too thick.
  • Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
  • Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
  • Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
  • Tibia is too thick.
  • Ankles are generally poorly represented.
Style - technical
  • Image not shown in anatomical position
  • "Cranium" most commonly referred to as the skull (not labelled()
  • Calcaneus labelled but not other tarsal or carpal bones
  • Manubrium labelled but is part of sternum
  • No such structure as "pelvic girdle"
Style - visual
  • Titles difficult to read and close to lines
  • Numbers of vertebrae impossible to read
  • Red vs blue lines unclear?
Articles this image appears in
File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Human musculoskeletal system, Outline of human anatomy
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton
Tom (LT) (talk)
  • DelistTom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist -per reason above (too bad we cant use this [35])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, per explanation by LT910001, thank you — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, I can point to a number of additional faults with both images, but I don't think we need to list more - this seems very clear to me. CFCF 💌 📧 17:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist for Halloween —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist per my previous comments. Would prefer if corrections could be made though. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist – Agree with the above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delisted both images. --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Delist: DNA clamp[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2015 at 04:42:00 (UTC)

The human DNA clamp protein (PCNA) assembled in a trimer, rendered from PDB: 1AXC​.
I made this image in 2006. We now have many thousands of similar rendered protein structure images, many of which are of equally pretty and symmetrical molecular complexes, and this particular image is of unimpressive technical quality by current standards. (Compare this image of a very similar protein complex from the same article: File:1CZD.png.) I just made an incidental edit to an article it's used in and was reminded of it, and was surprised to see it's still an FP.
Articles this image appears in
DNA clamp, DNA replication, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, replisome, protein trimer
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1axc tricolor.png
Opabinia regalis (talk)
  • DelistOpabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist – insufficient resolution. ssт✈(discuss) 07:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist As you wish - you don't often see somebody asking for delisting of his/her own image... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we rerender and replace? I mean, it's an important enough protein to have its own article, so it's not like any other protein could replace its encyclopedic value. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Adam Cuerden: Every human protein has its own article :) And the Protein Data Bank - the source of the data for images like this - has over 100k structures in it. I considered just updating it, but even a modern rendering would be very ordinary; it's basically a historical accident that this one became the featured example. I don't really know much about the FP process, but I suggest looking at Evolution and evolvability's work for high-quality protein images. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know, it's a good example of β-pleated sheets and α-spirals, at a glance, and also of modular proteins. And, honestly, given good renders, I don't think FP would be against every human protein having an FP, if they had decent articles, good images, and were nominated in sets so that we don't have - what is it, ~ 20,000 proteins nominated? Though, I suppose, the exact structure will only be known for a certain number. What's that at now, a couple thousand? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hmmm, I hadn't thought about it that way (and to be honest, most have crappy articles). There are about 28k structures in the PDB listed as human proteins, but there's a lot of redundancy - looks like around 2400 unique proteins. I know the EBI did an automated batch of protein renders a few years ago and uploaded the results to Commons, but those are looking rather dated now too. I left a note at WT:MCB for their thoughts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, let's see... since this is a DNA replication protein, it might make sense to start with a complete set of known, structurally-well-defined proteins involved in DNA replication, or just all proteins that act directly on DNA (possibly excluding mitochondrial proteins). I think our largest set is around a hundred or so; don't see why you couldn't reasonably go that level, though that count would need to include any secondary views of the proteins. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for the kind words Opabinia regalis. I like the idea of doing some general updating of important protein images, Adam Cuerden. I have some PyMOL scripts that I can run to do some cleaner renders of structures. However, really good images will require some manual decision making on what features to highlight (active sites, key residues, substrates, cofactors, oligomers etc) which is sadly harder to automate. If there is interest, I'd happily make some sets of images in the same fundamental style (e.g. Enzyme, Theta_defensin or Plant_lipid_transfer_proteins). I can open source my PyMOL scripts if that's useful to the projects too. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Evolution and evolvability: That sounds perfect. They're certainly valuable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - happy to be of service, Op. Atsme📞📧 16:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Delist: Giant planes comparison[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:41:18 (UTC)

An overlay diagram showing the four largest aircraft ever built
Updated values and visual dimensions
This image, promoted in 2006, has data inconsistent with the specifications listed in the aircrafts' respective articles. Therefore, this fails WP:WIAFP#6 and should be delisted.
Articles this image appears in
Airbus A380, Antonov An-225 Mriya, Boeing 747, Boeing 747-8, Hughes H-4 Hercules, Large aircraft, List of large aircraft
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Giant planes comparison.svg
  • Delistsst✈discuss 08:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the image is fine but the values are wrong would replacing with an updated version be suitable? It would be easy to edit. If it is deemed necessary the proportions could be confirmed or adjusted too, but a quick check suggest the values are not that far out so I suspect the image itself is still sufficiently accurate. Other than the inaccuracies I like the diagram - Wolftick (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Including the Spruce Goose (a one-off eccentricity from the 1940s which only flew a small number of times) alongside aircraft which entered series production or have had lengthy careers is also problematic. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now updated the values and visual dimensions of the diagram according to [36][37][38][39]. Suggest either Delist and Replace or update original as new version. Diagram now fulfils WP:WIAFP#6 which was original reason for delist. I don't think the merits of the H-4 being included is in the scope of this nomination. - Wolftick (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Have also taken the opportunity to update the names per Talk:Antonov is missing which makes sense to me from a consistency point of view. Also removed the Intercontinental/I suffixes from the 747-8 as the only two versions are 747-8I and 747-8F which are identical in size making the distinction superfluous. (nb WiiWillieWiki's comment below was made after this change) - Wolftick (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist and Replace per Wolftick's reasons and because of updated information. WiiWillieWiki 04:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As nominator, I would not mind a delist and replace. sst 05:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Delisted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Not enough support for replacing with the updated version. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Delist and Replace: File:Jade Raymond Feb 2012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2016 at 03:35:22 (UTC)

Original: Jade Raymond
Currently used in articles
Alt Crop
The crop has been used in articles instead of the original. Personally I think the crop is a better picture.
Articles this image appears in
none at this time
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jade Raymond
  • Delist and replaceGamerPro64 03:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • D&R Although in the FPC nomination the original gained more support, I'd agree the crop is better focusing on the subject. Brandmeistertalk</