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 and replace —
Wow (
talk) 19:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep – his shirt is no longer white, and if you zoom in, the details on his skin are washed out in the replacement image.
Bammesk (
talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yikes. Good eye. Green meanie. --
Veggies (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment – I uploaded a new version so that it's not as green overall, but the sharpness issue can't be fixed. --
Wow (
talk) 20:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Withdraw --
Wow (
talk) 05:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - No way. The replacement image may be larger, but it has a universal yellow tint to everything that's muddling the colors. Look at the white fringe on Nelson's ribbons and notice how they're yellowed in the replacement. The uniform has lost its hue as well. --
Veggies (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I think we don't promote TIFF files because of accessibility. I would support if the replacement was in JPEG. It has a reliable source.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This nomination was added to the FPC page with
this edit, so I fixed the expiry date based on its timestamp.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The TIFF version has original colors because it was common to leave this yellow tint and additionally it is layer added that happens with the passage of time, a faithful representation of reality. However, I agree that a JPEG needs to be developed from the TIFF for its best representation in browsers preferably using RGB. --
The_Photographer (
talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 13:08:27 (UTC)
Reason
Blown highlights, zero detail in the sculpture—It may as well be three naked people standing on the beach for all the viewer can tell. The sculpture article already has closeups in daylight of the individual figures, giving the reader a much clearer perspective on what a portion of the work actually looks like up close. Thus, both the technical qualities and EV are lacking in this picture.
Delist this looks like one of those old photos from the late 2000s; surely a better-composed picture of this sculpture can be obtained? –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 04:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist. The criticisms of the nomination are valid. I think this is too much about getting an artsy shot and not enough about clearly depicting the subject to be encyclopedic. (To be fair, I think the same thing about many of my own shots. But then, I haven't tried listing any of them for FP...) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm disappointed that I missed the voting for this nomination. This is objectively a very poor quality image and I find it hard to believe that this was ever selected as a FP. The photo's foreground is completely underexposed while the sky is blown out. I agree that this does a poor job of depicting the intended subject. --
mcshadyplTC 04:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)reply
and above comment by mcshadypl pretty much sums up why I gave up with Wikipedia ~15 years ago not long after I uploaded the image - which was taken during the winter at sunset - hence the dark foreground, which was an accurate representation of what it actually looked like. 15 years ago there was a lot less content on wikipedia and digital cameras were in their infancy, having not long graduated from film at the time. Maybe it's an 'very poor quality image' and does a 'poor job of depicting the intended subject', however it's widely used on quite a number of various language wikipedias. Anyway, whatevs'. Maybe I'll log in to wikipedia again some time in the next 15 years.
chowells (
talk) 20:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2020 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Reason
It no longer meets the minimum resolution for an FP. Further, it really isn't used in a way that present the image in a compelling way beyond all other similar pictures on Wikipedia. Beyond that, there is already a suitable FP alternative at File:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg.
Keep. I think for this still to be used in such core articles shows its value; it is the main image in the 'Fossils' section of the 'Plant' article. I think a whole log in context has value separate to the other FP. Resolution requirements aren't retrospective.
TSP (
talk) 21:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2020 at 08:38:41 (UTC)
Reason
Below the minimum resolution, this image is at 900 pixels limit. It is not possible to find a larger resolution version on the NASA website. As per
Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria/Image size.
Keep - this image was nominated for delisting two years ago (
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Deep Impact Probe Collision) for this very reason and was kept. Nothing has changed. The resolution criteria is not retroactive, and this image falls into the category where we look the other way.
MER-C 16:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't understand this nomination: this seems to be the best quality photo of this historic event which is available, and the article notes that the image has EV in its own right.
Nick-D (
talk) 08:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. An image which has high EV in its own right (rather than merely for what it depicts) should be judged for what it is. It's irreplaceable, and should not be judged by the standards for replaceable images. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't understand - lower EV than what? It's in the article about itself, so that doesn't diminish the EV... --
Janke |
Talk 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Janke.
MER-C 16:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist (assuming the other one passes as it appears to be doing) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Reason for delist is invalid. This is an adult. the other is a juvenile.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 09:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Charlesjsharp. The new FP doesn't invalidate this one, as they illustrate different life stages. There is no rule against multiple FPs of one subject if both have value.
TSP (
talk) 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Rather over-cropped if you ask me. Maye try a compromise? Leave the top as in uncropped, crop the bottom somewhere between? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 09:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Something like Alt1 below? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Alt1 – half as cropped (CSS image crop)
I agree regarding the over-crop. I prefer the original. It was probably cropped just for infobox use.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree that the current FP is aesthetically better, but the aspect ratio really doesn't work well for infobox use (even the cropped version still overwhelms the vertical space). Are we okay with not having the FP be used in the main article, where it has the most EV? --
Paul_012 (
talk) 09:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Trivially restored to the page using {{CSS image crop}}. Which I did. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 12:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Ah, never thought of that as an option. Withdrawing nomination. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Adam.
MER-C 17:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2020 at 23:32:28 (UTC)
Reason
The newer version has been demisted and gives a clearer view of the brushwork. The article on the painting uses the suggested replacement rather than the current featured version (not that means much as anyone can edit it).
Replaced with File:'Hip, Hip, Hurrah! Artist Festival at Skagen', by Peder Severin Krøyer (1888) Demisted with DXO PhotoLab Clearview; cropped away black border edge.jpg --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 00:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2020 at 03:25:20 (UTC)
Reason
The current FP (24,000 × 12,000 px) is 3.24 times smaller than the suggested replacement image (43,200 × 21,600 pixels), which seems to be the original image resolution as published by NASA. It appears that the former image was shrunk to fit upload limits back in 2006.
D&R - not even sure this needs a vote; an otherwise-identical higher-resolution replacement could just have be uploaded over the top of the original file, I think? But yes, if it is needed, it should obviously pass
TSP (
talk) 23:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The contrast/saturation doesn't look faithful, judging from
museum photos. Adjusting it could be tough due to huge resolution and file size.
Brandmeistertalk 16:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Brandmeister, the museum that houses a painting is usually the most reliable source, in this case
Czartoryski Museum. The version on the museum's website
[1] is similar to the proposed replacement.
Bammesk (
talk) 19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Replace, though it looks washed out to me.
Brandmeistertalk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Replace - easy decision, the one being replaced has a yellow hue that completely alters the painting. I have some books in front of me that all have an image of the painting closer to that of the proposed replacement.
Aza24 (
talk) 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Replace Not so. An unworthy suggestion. One looks too yellow, one looks too washed out. But as you have faithfull resproductions, I trust your judgement.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 07:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2020 at 06:27:14 (UTC)
Reason
The original video was promoted back in 2012. In June of this year, a newer, higher resolution version was uploaded. It even replaced the origninal video at
Daisy (advertisement). The newer version looks much better in comparison.
Delist for procedural reasons and because the busy background of this one makes the newly-listed alternative a much better choice. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace —
JCP2018 (
talk) 09:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment The replacement is "synthetic" - but did NASA do it, or is it "original research" by someone else? In any case, it's much smaller than the original, and also failing FPC size criteria. --
Janke |
Talk 12:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Looks like it's done by "someone else", a personal account on flickr:
[2]. The editor might have a good reason for doing it, but still I call it "original research".
Bammesk (
talk) 14:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist, do not replace. The current FP is not used in any articles, and so must be delisted. The replacement is far too small to feature.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 18:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist, do not replace per J Milburn. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
While the discussion is bellow qourum, this unused image can't retain its featured picture status and is delisted.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2020 at 22:34:47 (UTC)
Reason
Qualitatively, it's fine, but it is no longer used on any articles where it has any encyclopedic value. One article is of the Staten Island Ferry, which does not appear in the picture. The second is of a general article on architects, having nothing to do with New York exclusively, where the picture appears on the bottom, below the citations, without any caption or relevance. Additionally, there are TWO featured pictures that could easily replace this one in both articles. The first is File:Staten Island Ferry terminal.jpg. The second is File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 3.jpg.
Delist per nom; also obsolete (without historical significance) since the new WTC has been built. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 01:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This remains a very high quality photo, and photo showing lower Manhattan's skyline during the period between the terrorist attack and the completion of the new WTC is of considerable historical significance. I imagine it could be used in articles on the aftermath of the terrorist attack or the history of New York City.
Nick-D (
talk) 11:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2020 at 01:40:37 (UTC)
Reason
Unfortunately, the image looks overprocessed (compare
lower res Bundesarchiv version). It also has limited encyclopedic value because this reaction was decidedly the minority one among Sudeten Germans.
Delist — (
t ·
c) buidhe 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist Not being used is enough to delist in and of itself. Exceedingly harsh shadows. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs 16:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist – unused, and
this version shows more of what there was (more encyclopedic).
Bammesk (
talk) 23:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist - It's a misleading, cropped version of a much larger picture. --
Veggies (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2020 at 16:37:27 (UTC)
Courtesy collapse of graphic content on a page not about the graphic content, and which is being actively used for other content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reason
I don't want to delist this for being graphic. We've had dead bodies on the Wikipedia mainpage before; we'll probably have them again. But it's such a bad reproduction of the photo that my urge for not censoring the main page wars with the overblown whites and dismal dark of the shadows. It's from 2007. That probably explains a lot.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2020 at 11:48:56 (UTC)
Reason
A person was cropped out on the left. The flag - somewhat transparent in the original, as befits one with a bright sky behind it, has been turned solid. It's just an over-manipulated image.
Comment: Good to see you back, Chris, even if it is just for the odd housekeeping matter. I note that we have
min:Roosilawaty and
id:Roosilawaty, so this image may be a good addition to those articles at least.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 20:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
J Milburn: I know it's a pain, but not putting a colon before links to other language Wikipedias used to be how the sidebar was populated with articles in other languages, and it technically still works, meaning your statement came out as "I note that we have and, so this image may be a good addition to those articles." I've fixed it for you by adding a colon before "min:Roosilawaty" and "id:Roosilawaty". Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 11:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I probably over-explained. I just really hate editing other people's comments, y'know? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Are there any barriers to creating a stub on
Roosilawaty to save this FP? (not notable per WP:BIO or similar?) Google Books shows some resources on her, but they're unfortunately almost all in Indonesian.
Nick-D (
talk) 02:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
And decent enough articles on a couple of other Wikipedias. I've asked at WikiProject Indonesia.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is there any chance we could put this on hold for a week or two to see if we can rustle up an article?
Josh Milburn (
talk) 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd support that, as it seems likely that a stub could be created.
Nick-D (
talk) 05:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply
@
J Milburn: I have some slight doubts about some of the proportions in that image. Her head looks a little stretched, and maybe that's just an optical illusion, but it's odd enough that I'd want some confirmation of the scan before proceeding. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.4% of all
FPs 23:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)reply