Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2014

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.

Delist: Barren-ground caribou

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

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. Brandmeister^talk 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

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

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)

• Delist — Kaldari (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• info I addad a more free? and my favorite license: FAL too. The GFDL 1.2-only license is from my Wikipedia start-time, but still a good license! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• more info: Take a look to the use list. The most of the uses are a copyright violations, it does not matter what license ... a more free, or a less free ... I see simply too much (only?!?) copyright violations! For me: this is and it will be always remain a nonsense discussion at all. A pure philosophical question. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw per addition of Free Art License. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Strelitzia

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

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)

• Delist — J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Pretty, but I agree. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist-- Herald 15:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: File:Dendrocygna bicolor wilhelma.jpg

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

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)

• Delist — Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• To be honest, I wish we could have both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we can, but for that to be the case, we have to (IMO) remove
    Fulvous Whistling Duck article in order to find the space. And if we do that, then IMO we also lose a valuable image of the duck out of water. To me, it seems silly to have two 'in water' images and no 'out of water' images... But I suppose we can use this as a RFC as much as it is a delist. I'm all for finding a way to keep both if it best serves Wikipedia's interests. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'll see if Jimfbleak (the "Bird Man of Wikipedia") has an interest in the species. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of reaching out to User:Sabine's Sunbird (if he's still active) as he used to participate in FPC and is the actual photographer of the 'out of water' photo (and therefore would probably have a vested interest in helping). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good choice. Sadly, he hasn't edited since January. (Though perhaps he is feeling well enough to edit) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps it's not necessary - Jimfbleak has already added enough text that we're not far off having the space for a third image. I'll monitor the article and see how it goes but it's looking like a delist may not be necessary. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. User:Jimfbleak has expanded the article sufficiently for the image to be re-added so I've gone ahead and done so. I'm happy to withdraw this delist nomination now. Crisis averted. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FWIW, I hope to continue expanding, perhaps to FA eventually Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Dream of the Fisherman's wife

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support as nominator – Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Any chance of seeing the replacement image, in some form or another, understanding you don't want this to be a D&R...-Godot13 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not actually ready yet, but it'll be based on http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.05120/ - It's a different image, but I do prefer, when possible, to minimize the amount of restoration on the face. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support delist given the suggested image.--Godot13 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "I'd rather have my work appear on the main page, which does not happen in a delist and replace." - I'm actually trying to add those images which were promoted through a D&R into the queue, when I find them. I'm frankly astonished that this was common practice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Grant

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

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)

• Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - I'm not sure about the argument that we can't get a better copy while this one is up, though. It seems we have D&R noms all the time... Samsara (FA • FP) 14:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I've actually done most of a Grant restoration, but it won't "stick" in the article, and I can't help but think that this having FP is part of that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace: Ursa Major

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

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

Delta Ursae Majoris, 88 modern constellations in different languages

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ursa Major

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not too knowledgeable about Pix but I see that grounds for delisting include uploading a better image of original...soooo if that is possible I agree with delist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, the replacement looks a little less saturated on my laptop...will look on another screen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned, Durova did have a tendency to arbitrarily adjust levels; I attempted to get something around what it would look like if you had it in front of you, or nearly. This sets some constraints. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay - if this is more like the original then I support its retention as FP. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• D & R — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Kaldari (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace: Agree with rationale. Julia\^talk 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)

• Delist and replace — dllu (t,c) 18:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Adam Cuerden's version. dllu (t,c) 18:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: ALT2. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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,
    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.
        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.
            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.
                • The standard image from this period is black and white. We don't oppose that because they have zero colour fidelity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am currently uploading a warmth-adjusted image over ALT2 (revert if you don't like it, Adam, so I can upload separately). I've knocked down the yellows a little bit, eyeballing the white of the American flag. Not sure when it will be finished uploading, as this is an Indonesian connection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That looks pretty good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.
  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)

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

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

• Delist and replace — Colin°^Talk 13:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace unless contested by a subject expert. Jee 13:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could we please be clearer what we're replacing this with? J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You of all people should know :-) -- Colin°^Talk 14:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. While I certainly didn't oppose in the first place, I do agree that we can be too quick to edit. The rationale for replacement seems sound. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Per above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace This is wisdom. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace per others. Overwriting a content contributor's file, particulaly after protesting against such, is just bad practice. There is little to be gained other than contributor ill will and future loss to the projects.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: Here the original work is not overwritten. The issue is scientific accuracy is neglected for visual pleasing. Jee 15:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delist and replace --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Already voted above. Jee 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)

• Delist and replace —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Much better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No one's concerned that this isn't in an article...?24.222.132.240 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The replacement is, which renders the current FP not being in an article moot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood, now. Would be clearer if the article in question were listed as where it appears, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.190.205 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2014‎
      • Clarified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Quality difference is even highly visible from the thumbnail. Flipandflopped (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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^✉

• Delist and replace — Pine^✉ 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R' per Pine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I want to support the second picture. The Aurelia aurita replacement. I think it is great. Is this the right place or wait for a renomination? Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• Delist and Replace works for me. The original image is removed from the list of featured pictures and it is replaced with the new one. Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace (as photographer) It's became featured on Commons today ;-) -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R--Godot13 (talk) 21:47, 26 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

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 (as of yesterday; yes, this is very embarassing)

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)

• Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is difficult to compare when the pictures are not the same size, I would prefer to have them at same size, like this they are kind of jumping and vibrating before the eye. Like this is easyer to compare what happened. I am not sure, Adam. When looking like this original looks more balanced.Hafspajen (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• @Hafspajen: Let's go with vertical, then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ^{Let the others decide, Hafspajen (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

• Support — Inveterate fan of tight cropping that I am, I find the recropped version more focused & therefore more interesting. Sca (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And, even though I'm normally opposed, centring it on the glow just makes sense in this case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd hate to have been the poor sod who drew this from a daguerrotype (bet it wasn't Brady). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Since I !voted for the original, I will agree that the crop is tighter and more appealing. Jusdafax 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Cropped is better. Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 20 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

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

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]
  • Comment if it is the restored painting, shouldn't both be in the article on the painting? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that is a question to be posed on the talk page of the article as that constitutes a content issue. The question here is whether to delist the original and replace it with the restored version. I could see how including both would have good encyclopedic value but, that is not a discussion for here, I would think. :-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, D&R Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:17, 25 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]

• Comment. Aesthetically I prefer the original. 86.160.82.218 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it gives a different air to it, but maybe just because we are used to see old pictures dark. Here, read this - about darkening of this painting. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and replace – The original painting has now been restored, so this vastly superior scan shows the artwork as it is now.
  SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:31, 1 November 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

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

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)

• Delist & Replace — Godot13 (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R - YES!!! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R - 2 X YES!!!--The Herald 14:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R - 3 X YES!!! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The original isn't used in any articles. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Grizzly bear

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

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 — J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.
  talk•cont 23:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delist — The animal is indeed not clearly visible.
  talk•cont 23:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 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

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

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 ^@)

• Replace — (Hohum ^@) 10:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

]

• Erm, that still has most of the same issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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
  Wha? 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• Delist per J. Milburn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]
  • Wha? 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 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)[reply]

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

Delist: Sleeping koala

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

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)

• Delist — J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Mattximus (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Kaldari (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Cute picture, but not used. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist: Strelitzia

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

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)

• Delist — J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per previous nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per previous. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --P e z i (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per previous..But can you find any to replace??? Its been a POTD..that's why... Herald 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been a POTD has no impact on the future FP status of an image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)

• Delist — J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist also per nom. The EV is poor, and this is an uninteresting photo Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delist ---Never, never and never I'm going for hitting a support for this one...The herald 11:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist and Replace: Taj Mahal

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

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

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Taj Mahal in March 2004 - current FP
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal 2012.jpg - proposed replacement

Nominator

The herald

• Delist or Delist and Replace as nominator — The herald 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Replacing an FP with an obviously inferior image is insulting.
  Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

]

• Keep per Saffron. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Frankly, I don't rate either. Surely we can ask for a better picture of the Taj Mahal? J Milburn (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I agree with J Milburn's comment above: neither of these photos is an example of a very high quality image of the Taj Mahal. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Two FPs at Commons of the Taj Mahal: File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg, File:Taj Mahal Sunset.jpg -- these might be good candidates for nomination here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - File:Taj Mahal Sunset Edit1.jpg is already featured here; it's an edit of one of the images you linked to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Not up to current standards, and a much better photo is already featured here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist: Geisha-kyoto-2004-11-21.jpg

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

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)

• Delist — JPNEX (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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
  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.
  Wha? 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Delist: Geisha_Kyoto_Gion.jpg

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

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
   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]

• Delist Not a good or very useful photo Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per all above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist The quality is of a low technical standard, even by 2005 standards. The lighting, color, and especially the composition are all off.
  Wha? 08:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist per my arguments in the other geisha delist nom. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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: [19].JPNEX (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[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

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

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)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delist as above. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Jee 09:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: Not used, reinstatement already tried. Julia\^talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist: File:Socks cat 1.JPG

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

List of cats

, several others.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Socks_cat_1.JPG

Nominator

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

• Delist — I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/12/12/clintons-socks-the-cat-near-death - so let's not rush to this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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:

      David,

      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

• So there you go. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Oh, right. Missed that. Blast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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? --125.25.60.91 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Actually, I think User:CommonsDelinker does most of the work, but agreed. Good research, albeit unfortunate result. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

• Speedy close, image was deleted on Commons. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Black-fronted Dotterel

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

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)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist — replacement is far superior image.
  SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist - agree with above.--Godot13 (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist: Asian arowana

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

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)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist gazhiley 12:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Any replacements Chris?? --The Herald : here I am 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, no. Those are apparently really expensive fish. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Simply because it does not show the whole fish. Mattximus (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist: Airfield traffic

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

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)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist (perfunctory). —
  chat} 16:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist--Let it rather go..--The Herald : here I am 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delist. J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]