Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 13:20:21 (UTC)

Reason: The recent diptych reminded me of this one, nominated before I had my current understanding of PD-Art. The frame is a 3D object, and thus this is a copyvio (PD-Art doesn't apply).
Articles this image appears in: Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, +2
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Crop, upload as two images, replace as set Samsara 17:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crop, upload as two images, replace as set (Jolly good idea) Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine with me, if it sticks in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should't it? Hafspajen (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is Ceoil 's article - maybe we should ask. (It is Ceoil's FA - if that souds any better;- his, Victoria's and Kafka Liz's) Hafspajen (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not his article.
There is no ownership. And copyvio images cannot continue to be used. End of story. Samsara 11:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

You refer to problems with other users. Sometimes the problem is that they look back at a discussion like this one, and they see a precedent being set for FPC not taking priority. In fact, however, FPC has always taken priority over article editors unless there were very, very, very, very, very good reasons for not using the FP version of an image. The rule is discussion happens here, not elsewhere. Anyone can participate, and inviting him to comment via his personal talk page would be fine (we have had canvassing discussions in the past, and it's usually a good idea to steer clear of such distractions). Now, to go back to my original comment, since the motivation of this nom was copyvio, we're talking about an issue that doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiation. Either we fix it, or the image goes. I don't see a third alternative. Samsara 13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC) And as for no article ownership, it's policy. Nuff said.[reply]

I refer to the fact that I can't notice anything wrong in involving an editor who made a good work on the article. Especially not when it is an FA Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych/archive2 from these editors, I an NOT canvasing I only want involve him in this- especially because he doesn't seems to be aware of the 3D problem, like this edit shows. I rather wished to do this in a diplomatic way, but it is kinda spoiled by now. So enough said of that. Hafspajen (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so thoughtful Hafspajen, but I dont have any issue with a crop. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crop, upload as two images, replace as set. To be clear ;) Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Cropping seems like a good idea, but I don't understand why there could be copyright violation of a 15th century work of art. – Editør (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original (deleted) version had the frame, which is a situation in which PD-Art does not apply. See Commons' discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen another version was deleted. Thanks! – Editør (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @
Sagaciousphil:@Samsara:@Hafspajen:@Ceoil: It looks like the problematic parts were removed from the image. Is a delist still necessary? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- Those replace as a set votes came after the deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Armbrust - not sure I understand the question. Hafspajen (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: As the nomination currently stands, there is enough support for delisting the image, but not to replace it with two images as a set. (One can only replace an FP by first delisting it.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Commons is satisfied, then no objection from me. Samsara 05:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) except I'm mainly brunette but I'll count the blonde highlights! Reaches for coffee mug ...[reply
]

@
Sagaciousphil: I have no idea, what you don't understand. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I think Armbrust means: you
Sagaciousphil and Crisco need to say:Crop, upload as two images, replace as set not only delist, so he can proceed correctly. (Or maybe Crisco said it's fine with me already-...) Hafspajen (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@Crisco 1492:, if you're fine to replace the current FP with a two-image set, than could you produce the images, and make the replacecements in article space? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My internet's not being very friendly right now, so I'm not sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done In the case of Metropolitan Museum of Art, due to the technical challenges of the gallery plug-in, it seemed most parsimonious to remove the image along with another one that presented the same licensing issue. If anyone wants to implement a different solution, feel free to. Samsara 03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crop, upload as two images, replace as set is fine by me.
SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Replaced with File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, left panel.jpg and File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, right panel.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]