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

Replace: Maddison Elliott

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2019 at 08:41:05 (UTC)

Maddison Elliott is an Australian swimmer
Proposed replacement
Reason
Chronologically superseded in its article - current FP was taken for 2012 Paralympics, proposed replacement was taken for 2016 Paralympics.
Articles this image appears in
Maddison Elliott
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maddison Elliott
Nominator
MER-C
  • Replace — MER-C 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Since there is a 2012 image in her article as well, replace, even though I think the older photo is slightly better composed. Fun fact: A friend of mine is the mother of a Scottish paralympic athlete. I should ask her about photos. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Replace – Bammesk ( talk) 15:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've slipped the old one into the article for now. I think there's enough justification for it to be in there, but the FP star should move at some point. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace – newer photo has higher encyclopedic value. feminist ( talk) 09:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Suspend nomination to give it time to stabilize in the article. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days), it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Yellow-faced honeyeater

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 12:09:57 (UTC)

Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Caligavis chrysops)
Reason
Superseded by recently promoted FP File:Caligavis chrysops - Lake Parramatta Reserve.jpg. All usages replaced.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Yellow-faced Honeyeater nov08.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 12:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment My inclination on this one is that it's a very different pose and angle, so there might be a place for it, though I don't like the GDFL thing. I'm almost inclined to put it into the article for the image with the caption along the lines of "The bird has a very distinctive yellow streak below its eye", and see if it sticks. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • (This nom defaults to delist, since it's not used in articles, and, on the whole, I'm fine with that. I'm just bringing up the only option for salvaging its FP status) Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Huh. Actually... and it's a bit late to realise this I know: @ JJ Harrison: Isn't the image we just promoted Juvenile plumage? It lacks the black stripe under the yellow. Or is it a subspecies? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
        • I think it's an adult - the dark plumage is still visible, it just looks lighter because of the soft lighting. JJ Harrison ( talk) 19:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist -- Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I wish to stand Neutral to this. DreamSparrow Chat 14:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – Bammesk ( talk) 03:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - I still believe the images are too similar to have two featured pictures. Both images are good, but the recent promotion is excellent. Mattximus ( talk) 01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Suspend nomination to give it time to stabilize in the article. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • There is not enough support to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Pied kingfisher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 14:48:41 (UTC)

A pied kingfisher
Reason
not used and not as good as images in article pied kingfisher
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pied Kingfisher
Nominator
Charlesjsharp ( talk)
  • Delist — Charlesjsharp ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - gender and subspecies not identified, unused. While this doesn't have the same information as the existing FP File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) female.jpg, it does have the same information as some of the other pictures in the article. The lack of gender and subspecies identification make it difficult to pick out which image replaced this one. P.S. did you notify the nominator and photographer? MER-C 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
notifed photographer. -- Charlesjsharp ( talk) 22:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
yes, I was notified. Checking criteria for delisting, I don't mind if image becomes obsolete at some point: agree that something that was good at 2013 may become upgraded with better one at 2019 Artemy Voikhansky ( talk) 08:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
I've asked on the reference desk about the subspecies and gender. The image was taken in Israel, and if this is C. r. syriacus then the image can be reinserted. MER-C 13:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
I have inserted the image in the English Wikipedia article with sex and subspecies identified MER-C Artemy Voikhansky Mattximus Bammesk. Still recommend delist as FP. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 16:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
I disagree - now that the primary motivation for delisting has been addressed, I don't think this image's use by date has been reached. MER-C 17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Being a photographer behind the image, I'd refrain from expressing an opinion on the matter as I might be not as neutral as I'm expected to be. I'll leave this on the community. Artemy Voikhansky ( talk) 18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - Procedural since its not in any article. Mattximus ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – This has a better composition than other images in the article, IMO. I would like to see it stay in the article. True it has less resolution than the other FP, but it is a better depiction of the bird's body, tail, overall proportions. This is a comment, not a vote. Bammesk ( talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Image is now in a gallery. I think use in a gallery usually means not significant encyclopedic value, plus there is a FP in the infobox. On the other hand, this is the only depiction of that subspecies and the composition is a clear depiction of the full bird. I am neutral on this nom. Bammesk ( talk)
A sidenote (my opinion) about nominating subspecies that appear only in a gallery: I see sufficient EV if the nom has at least 2 images (i.e. a set, of 2 subspecies), in which case the nom is an automatic depiction of subspecies variation; or if there is sufficient text in the article describing the particular (the nominated) subspecies. Bammesk ( talk) 02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Common grass blue (1)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 15:00:10 (UTC)

Common Grass Blue, Zizina labradus labradus, taken in Swifts Creek, Victoria
Reason
not up to current Fp standards
Articles this image appears in
Zizina labradus
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common grass blue.jpg
Nominator
Charlesjsharp ( talk)
  • A better replacement is not needed; this is not VI. This is not FP standard now. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 20:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist independent of duplication, the resolution is far lower than current standards. Mattximus ( talk) 13:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist as above. Josh Milburn ( talk) 20:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – there is higher resolution FP of this: [1]. Bammesk ( talk) 02:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • There is not enough support to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used, it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Common Grass-blue (2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 14:53:27 (UTC)

a suitable caption for the image
Reason
Not up to current FP standards
Articles this image appears in
links to the article(s) that use this image
Previous nomination/s
link(s) to the image's original FPC nomination, and any previous delist noms
Nominator
Charlesjsharp ( talk)
  • Delist — Charlesjsharp ( talk) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - this contains the same information as File:Common grass blue.jpg (also up for delisting). At least one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for getting rid of this one specifically is not all that clear without a clearly better replacement. Both are used in the article. I prefer the other image, for what it's worth. MER-C 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Replacement is surely irrelevant if the images should not be FP. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 20:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
That may be the case, but you'll find it a lot easier to delist FPs that have been superseded with better images (even if the newer images are not of FP standard). MER-C 13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
Per MER-C, "I prefer the other image" as well. Bammesk ( talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
I prefer the other image's background, but this one has more pixels. Bammesk ( talk) 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - Not up to featured picture standards, blurry and obscured body especially. Mattximus ( talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Some process related notes. Sorry in advance for the long wall of text! As far as the nom reason "Not up to current FP standards": A) if by "current standards" a nominator means minimum pixel requirement, then the reason section should say so, and my reply would be: it is a good reason when we have a higher resolution replacement, otherwise it is not (on its own and automatically) a good reason, because the number of pixels is an agreed upon consensus aimed at incremental improvement over time, I don't think it makes sense to delist each and every previous FP just because an WP:RFC ups the pixel consensus. B) if by "current standards" a nominator means issues other than minimum pixel requirement, then a nominator should provide some hints in the nom reason, so each individual reviewer doesn't have to chase and guess it for themselves. Also, Charles, please fill out the nom fields above so each reviewer doesn't have to go through multiple clicks to see where/if the image is used in articles, and why it was supported or opposed in previous noms. Bammesk ( talk) 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I thought I was doing the FP project a favour by delisting, but it's too time-consuming if one has to fill in lots of fields. Not up to current FP standards = quality standards, not size. For me, one click on the image should be enough to agree delist. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • About "it's too time-consuming", 5 votes means 4 reviewers have to go through the "time-consuming" steps, instead of just one nominator. I think that's why the fields are there. About nom reason: words like "focus", "saturation", etc. equals less time consumption for reviewers, and no time consumption for nominator (specially when the file is less than 1500px). Yes you are doing the project a favor, however, leaving volunteer reviewers in the dark and expecting them to do the footwork is a bad idea. Bammesk ( talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used, it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: Dali Atomicus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 23:27:52 (UTC)

Current FP: Dali Atomicus
Proposed Replacement: Dali Atomicus
Reason
to be replaced by File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u (retouched).jpg, file retouched
Articles this image appears in
Salvador Dalí, Philippe Halsman, Portal:Salvador Dalí
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dali Atomicus
Nominator
Yann ( talk)
  • Delist and replace — Yann ( talk) 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what the current conventions are, but I think it's easier for reviewers if you show both images as I've done now. Hope you don't mind Yann. Revert if you disagree or if I'm wrong. Also it's best if you tell people what the actual changes are, i.e., why do you think it's now better? You haven't given a solid reason - "retouched" is very vague and could mean anything. -- jjron ( talk) 07:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for adding the retouched version. I didn't do the retouch, so I don't know the details, but I have noticed this version. AFAICT some vertical lines were removed. Regards, Yann ( talk) 10:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
It's been retouched to remove the strings that the frames are suspended from.
The better-known version of this artwork is a retouched version, presumably hand-retouched in 1948. Our copy is a scan of the original photo without the original retouching; this digital edit remakes some, but not all, of the changes in the better-known version. (Not changed: assistant's hands visible on the left; wooden support on steps; cropping; painting behind Dali. For me that makes this a bit of a weird compromise - it's neither the famous version, nor the original unedited photo. I'd suggest we keep the current version. TSP ( talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per conversation above. The strings that have been edited out are part of the photograph, not damage. It's true that the better-known version of this lacks the strings, but the other differences from the better-known version remain, which makes this an odd compromise that I think is less encyclopedic than the original photo. Arguably also a violation of FP criterion 8. TSP ( talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn OK, fine. -- Yann ( talk) 09:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 02:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: Lansdowne Herakles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2019 at 23:19:29 (UTC)

Current FP: Lansdowne Herakles
Proposed Replacement: Lansdowne Herakles
Reason
to be replaced by File:Lansdowne Herakles Getty Museum (retouched).jpg, background noise reduced
Articles this image appears in
Lansdowne Heracles
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lansdowne Heracles
Nominator
Yann ( talk)
  • Delist and replace — Yann ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep current — blurring and 'glow' at the statue's edges. I don't particularly see the need to have less noise on the background than on the main subject; I don't object to it, but it isn't worth the cost of even the slightest negative impact on the main subject. TSP ( talk) 12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist and replace – It's an improvement. Edge glow is hardly noticeable at full size (it's confined to 2 pixels in head and shoulder area), there is no edge blurring. The noise improvement is very noticeable. Bammesk ( talk) 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace. I abstained from supporting the nomination, but seeing that the noise is fixed I should support. MER-C 15:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and replace: Earthrise

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 06:37:40 (UTC)

Earthrise
Replace by Earthsound's edited version.
Reason
Replacing with correct flaws inherent in the scan and and to improve upon the digital manipulation NASA released many years ago.
Articles this image appears in
Earthrise, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg
Nominator
The NMI User ( talk)
  • Delist and replace — The NMI User ( talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – The color correction on Earth looks appropriate but @ Earthsound: can you speak to the color changes in the Moon? Did you go back to the film original source or correct the NASA version? ---  Coffeeand crumbs 07:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – All versions I've seen printed on paper have had a brownish tint to the moon. OTOH, the astronauts described the surface as grey. Now, in the candidate the moon is slightly bueish (~5-10 higher in B channel), and there is even a slight cyan cast in some of the craters (R channel ~10 lower than G abd B), carried over from the original. How can we know what's right? (Looking at the moon from earth won't help much due to atmospheric filtration...) -- Janke | Talk 09:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • They're just the same material as in Commons:Category:Lunar samples, under direct sunlight. So they should be roughly the same color as that. Alternatively, what color is the full moon as seen from earth at zenith (when least colored by the atmosphere)? — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There are few print issues that don't exist on, or were removed from, the NASA version, mostly visible on the moon's surface - the most obvious are a long mark on the rightmost crater, and a few blotches to the right of the pair of craters to the right of this - I wonder if these could be addressed? I'm also feeling instinctively a little uncomfortable about featuring an image that differs so much in coloration from the official published NASA versions - are there WP:OR issues?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSP ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 06:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist: Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2019 at 14:19:41 (UTC)

The Helsinki Cathedral
Reason
Superceded by recently promoted FP File:Helsinki July 2013-27a.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
minor usage in List of cathedrals in Finland, will be replaced if consensus is to delist
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 14:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment given the angle makes the church's shape a lot easier to figure out - how far the portico extends, etc - I'm not so sure we should be too quick to shout "supersedes" instead of "complements" Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - it is almost identical to the recently promoted image, it does not provide almost any new EV to have a slightly different angle. Should every building have a featured image taken from the front, then a few steps to the left? Mattximus ( talk) 15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • This is nearer a 45° angle, and shows the structure of the building much more clearly in my eyes. The Greek Cross shape is basically impossible to make out from the new FP as there's no depth. Perhaps both shouldn't be FPs, but the rush to remove this from articles seems a mistake. In fact, the new FP is super misleading - although in an unavoidable way - as to the overall shape as it makes the nearest side look very different from the entrances left and right, as the roof can't be seen from the low angle. Oppose Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 15:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I am leaning to delist, two things can be better, the deep blue sky doesn't look natural, for a 45 degree angled shot the shadows lean into the view rather than lean away (a photo from the other side or a better time of day can fix this). About not removing this photo from article(s), I agree, it is informative and shows another dimension. But we can just delist it. Bammesk ( talk) 03:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC) . . . Delist – Bammesk ( talk) 03:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Adam Cuerden; comparing this with the front-on view, this is the much better of the two. It allows a good portion of the left-side of the cathedral to be viewed, and the new image is over-bright in the whites. Delist the other one, and keep this one.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Adam & considering WP:NOTPAPER. -- Janke | Talk 14:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Per above, and because this has less people and shows the bottom of the columns a bit more. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 13:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Dahlia hybrid

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 14:21:04 (UTC)

Original – An unknown Dahlia cultivar
Reason
Not used in any articles. It's a hybrid and the cultivar and location are not specified - which is just as bad for EV as if the species weren't identified. Plus Dahlia has enough images already.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia x hybrida.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Don't see many images better than this one in the article. I believe, this was replaced in the Dahlia article by the current lead image which is not identified as well -- Muhammad (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'd say Delist, but put it back into the article (which I have done). It's certainly photographically excellent and better than the replacement, but maybe not quite FP level with the identification issue. Good to see you back, Muhammad! Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – @ MER-C: I suggest nominating File:Kwiat Dalii.JPG, which is clearly identified, as replacement.---  Coffeeand crumbs 10:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    That image didn't pass in 2008, so it shouldn't pass today. MER-C 10:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept -- Armbrust The Homunculus 15:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply


Replaced

Delist and Replace: Kew Gardens Alpine House

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 19:28:20 (UTC)

Original
Proposed replacement
Reason
My original was delisted at Commons a couple of months ago after it was discovered that the deciding !vote in the original nomination three years ago had been cast by a sock of a now-banned user. I was given the option of renominating, but chose instead to reprocess the image taking advantage of what I have learned since the original nomination, resulting in one with more muted highlights on the clouds and the building, easier on the eyes I think. It passed with more support than the original nomination.

So, I have decided that a delist and replace here is warranted as well.

I am the creator and uploader in both situations; I have notified the original nominator here although he has not edited since mid-2016.

Articles this image appears in
Kew Gardens
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alpine House, Kew Gardens
Nominator
Daniel Case ( talk)

Replaced with File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist and Replace: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2019 at 08:37:52 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, by Joe Rosenthal
To be replaced by this version, larger crop and better
Reason
To be replaced by File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg, larger crop and better. Better to have the image as close as possible to the original picture for such an iconic image.
Articles this image appears in
already replaced
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, 2
Nominator
Yann ( talk)

Replaced with File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 08:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: Apollo 11

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 15:10:34 (UTC)

Current featured picture – Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot, stands on the surface of the moon near the leg of the lunar module, Eagle, during the Apollo 11 moonwalk.
Replacement photo. This is the original composition of the photo taken by Neil Armstrong. The original film exposure can be found at NASA's image database
Reason
To be replaced by File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg. The current FP was promoted in 2005 when this alternative was not available, I believe. It also fails WP:FP? #8 (bullet 4): "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. (See: Moon landing conspiracy theories#Photographic and film oddities) It is also of lower resolution. There was a previous discussion to delist where it was kept in 2013.
The current FP currently appears in 2 pages in the article namespace compared to the 18 pages it appeared in 2013.
The replacement is currently in 25 articles.
Articles this image appears in
Current FP appears at: Dark Side of the Moon (mockumentary) and Moon landing conspiracy theories. (I believe this version of photo is relevant to these pages.)

Newer version appears at: Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Colonization of Mars, Extravehicular activity, History of spaceflight, History of the United States, History of the United States (1964–1980), July 1969, List of spaceflight records, Space exploration, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aldrin Apollo 11 original
Nominator
---  Coffeeand crumbs

Replaced with File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Replace: Oedipus and the Sphinx

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 09:41:15 (UTC)

Oedipus and the Sphinx
Proposed replacement
Reason
Superseded by official museum reproduction. While the pixel count is smaller, the level of detail is about the same and the colors are now authoritative.
Articles this image appears in
Oedipus and the Sphinx etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/On the Island of Dr Moreau
Nominator
MER-C
  • Replace — MER-C 09:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why is the proposed remplacement so much darker? It is also smaller. Yann ( talk) 13:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    This is the image that is currently available at the museum website and is more recent than the existing FP. As to your questions, I don't know. MER-C 16:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace First looks like the typica result from auto-levels on a darker image. Replacement is more authorative. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace – Bammesk ( talk) 15:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace - Per nom. Mattximus ( talk) 00:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace. I think we have to go with the authoritative colors over something that appears prettier but may not match the artist's intent or execution. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Replaced with File:Oedipus and the Sphinx MET DP-14201-023.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 02:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: We Can Do It

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2019 at 09:37:46 (UTC)

We Can Do It!
To be replaced by this version
Alt 1 Restored version
Alt 2 More extensive restoration
Reason
to be replaced by File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413.jpg
Articles this image appears in
We Can Do It!, History of women in the United States, History of feminism, Rosie the Riveter, Female roles in the World Wars, Home front, J. Howard Miller, Geraldine Doyle, Precarious work, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rosie the Riveter Reloaded
Nominator
Yann ( talk)
  • Delist Much higher resolution, better contrast and colors. — Yann ( talk) 09:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional replace Support alt 2 - needs some touch-up to remove the creases and crop the border. MER-C 10:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional replace – per MER-C. Bammesk ( talk) 16:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC) . . . Support Alt 2 – Bammesk ( talk) 02:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ MER-C, Adam Cuerden, and Bammesk: I uploaded a restored version. Please note that most defects are in the poster itself. Like an old painting, we don't want to clean cracks, etc. Regards, Yann ( talk) 07:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That's true for paintings. I'm not so sure that's true for mass-produced prints, where we should be providing an idealised copy. The big crack on the right, for instance, is not part of the encyclopedic value. I'm afraid I started on a restoration when you hadn't said anything for a day, and have... basically finished it before seeing this, so... sorry for stepping on toes. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Alt 2 Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.8% of all FPs 00:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Alt 2. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Alt 2 Mattximus ( talk) 12:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support Alt 2 Kaldari ( talk) 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm rather taken aback by this -- it's such a widely adapted image, in the heavily colour-saturated version; is this really what the original poster looked like? Have the colours faded over time? Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I think the old FP is oversatured. I am not surprised, this is quite often done to boost the appeal. Regards, Yann ( talk) 10:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It can be difficult to distinguish oversaturated because the original poster was oversaturated from oversaturated because somebody boosted it later. But in this case I think we should take the colors from the official government scan (as used in these restorations) as definitive. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Replaced with File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: Woman Suffrage Procession

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 05:02:47 (UTC)

Original: To be replaced I did my best with a fairly bad source, which included damage to the leftmost woman's shoulder, which I almost got right when I fixed it.
Suggested replacement: Re-restored from alternate source. Not as saturated, but it's probably more accurate. Shoulder is as it was originally.
Reason
Improved source allowed the fixing of errors in the original restoration.
Articles this image appears in
Quite a few, including Woman suffrage parade of 1913, Women's suffrage, National American Woman Suffrage Association, etc.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Women's Suffrage
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs
  • Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 05:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist and replace – Good faith effort on the first restoration attempt, but there were significant differences to historical. The shape of the woman in the rear for example.---  Coffeeand crumbs 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace per restorer request. MER-C 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace -- Janke | Talk 07:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • N.B. I did NOT replace usages, because I think there's an automated tool for that? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 04:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Replaced with File:Official Program Woman Suffrage Procession - March 3, 1913.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist and Replace: Jules Verne

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2019 at 19:06:02 (UTC)

Reason
I... was honestly surprised to see this was an FP. The restoration of the current FP is competent enough, but the original is a very, very poor reproduction, and is very overexposed. The jacket on the current FP almost looks drawn, due to the level of detail in it. The Carjat is, I think, much better. I haven't done any replacement in articles, because I felt I should let the votes come in first.
Articles this image appears in
Jules Verne +10
Previous nomination
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jules Verne
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7% of all FPs
  • D&R — Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7% of all FPs 19:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • D&R per nomination -- Basile Morin ( talk) 00:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Sorry. This restoration is better. But the Nadar is a better portrait, with Jules Vernes eyes fully open and in contact with the viewer. P. S. Burton ( talk) 07:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I think that the quality of the current FP is just too low. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7% of all FPs 17:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace. I agree with P. S. Burton's observation but I think the increase in image quality outweighs it. If we find a better original to restore, then we can always replace again. MER-C 16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • D&R Geoffroi 03:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • D&R DreamSparrow Chat 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • D&R -- Poydoo ( talk) 12:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Agree with P. S. Burton, also it seems to be slightly OOF. —kallerna ™ 04:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose – I prefer the composition (pose) of current FP by Nadar. Bammesk ( talk) 16:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Replaced with File:Jules Verne by Étienne Carjat.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply


Delisted

Replace: QR Code

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2019 at 03:40:48 (UTC)

Structure of a QR code, highlighting functional elements
Proposed replacement
Reason
Replaced in article due to a factual error.
Articles this image appears in
QR code
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/QR Code Structure
Nominator
MER-C
  • Replace — MER-C 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe it's just me, but at the scale it's shown at, the replacement seems much harder to read? Also, is it showing the same format? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • (1) It's used at a width of 400px in the article. (2) I'll quote from the talk page of the current FP: "Since this is a version 4 (33x33) QR symbol, it doesn't actually contain version information. That is present only in version 7 (45x45) and larger symbols. If version information were present, the two blue blocks would contain the same pattern of dark and light (but rotated 90 degrees)." The replacement image shows a v7 QR code. MER-C 03:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Is this version commonly used? The examples in the wild don't include 'em, but then, I'd imagine that there's a limit to how and where they can be photographed. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The version selected is governed by the amount of data to be transferred. Searching "QR code" in an image search engine suggests smaller QR codes - lower version numbers - appear to be more common. MER-C 04:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
In that case, I'm afraids I can't support a replace, because it's misleading as to the structure of the more common ones as it shows information not present in them, and can't support keeping the original, because it's inaccurate. I can only support fixing the original and turning this into a set, or neither being featured. Delist Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 04:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Meh. Sca ( talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist & replace per nom. The article's illustrated with plenty of images, and the lead image already shows the more common smaller version. I think it's better that the image used to illustrate the code structure also shows how the alignment patterns work in larger versions. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist & replace – per Paul_012. Bammesk ( talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist & replace here per above. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 03:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Trepanation and pirates

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 07:51:55 (UTC)

Illustration supposedly of trepanation
Allegedly a picture of pirates, but impossible to tell
Reason
I'm nominating these together, as I think the problems, while somewhat distinct, are similar enough. Neither are used; the Trepanation one has doubts as to whether it's really showing trepanation; and the pirate image just doesn't thumbnail, at all. They're all FPCs that simply failed to thrive: good enough to get to FPC, but the problems meant they left their articles thereafter. Also, as the person who restored, and, I believe, nominated them all (some under Shoemaker's Holiday, my erstwhile pseudonym), I think that I'm uniquely placed to ask this: Remove my FP credits for these.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Peter Treveris - engraving of Trepanation for Handywarke of surgeri 1525, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirates relaxing.
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 07:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist thanks -- Charlesjsharp ( talk) 10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist (with regret). MER-C 10:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist as per Adam Cuerden. Yann ( talk) 12:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist as per nom. Thanks for cleaning up old images that are no longer up to standard. Mattximus ( talk) 13:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Mattximus: This is a bit of history, but for a while, I was upset at... let's call them X - for telling me, about 8 years ago now to trim my list of FPs to just the best ones, when I realised later X listed pretty much everything they had touched. But now I'm kind of glad to have divested of a lot of my early works. The only thing being reminded they existed would do is mean I'd want to delist them. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 14:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist as above. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted File:Peter Treveris - engraving of Trepanation for Handywarke of surgeri 1525.png -- Armbrust The Homunculus 07:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Delisted File:Pyle pirate relaxing b.png -- Armbrust The Homunculus 07:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist or replace: Voyager 1 and 2

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:45:37 (UTC)

Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 with respect to the heliosphere
Proposed replacement
Reason
Chronologically obsolete, 2005 FP, not used in any articles. I've put up the most recent version of this image as a replacement, but I'm not too fussed if this gets delisted outright - the new image comes up short in a number of aspects.
Articles this image appears in
None. Replacement: Heliosphere, Voyager program
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Voyager 1 entering heliosheath region
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist or replace — MER-C 17:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 17:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Replace but put the interesting image on the three main Voyager pages ( Voyager program, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2. Randy Kryn ( talk) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist I agree with nom, the new image does have a lot to be desired. Mattximus ( talk) 03:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist without replacing. If the first one is obsolete and unused, that's not a great FP. The new one doesn't look great and the words are unreadable at thumbnail. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Sooty oystercatcher

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 15:15:01 (UTC)

A sooty oystercatcher
Reason
Carries similar information to recently promoted and higher resolution FP File:Haematopus fuliginosus - Doughboy Head.jpg. The new FP displaced this image in Sooty oystercatcher, so this one is effectively superceded. Minor usages haven't been replaced yet but will do so on delisting.
Articles this image appears in
(minor usages, may be replaced)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus fuliginosus Bruny.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist or replace: Sarracenia

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 20:32:42 (UTC)

Cutaway view of a Sarracenia flower
Proposed replacement
Reason
Unused JPEG diagram, 2006 FP, dumb file name. I've put up the SVG version as a replacement, but I believe it falls short of current FP standards - in particular, the use of raster images makes the S in SVG rather pointless.
Articles this image appears in
None. Replacement: Sarracenia.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sarracenia flower
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist or replace — MER-C 20:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist not used in any article, not FP standards. Mattximus ( talk) 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist If nothing else, the replacement seems to be a bit more amateurish looking. Think it's the fonts. Which given it then uses a non-vector image, is kind of a terrible SVG conversion. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 01:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Although the nomination didn't reach quorum, the file needs to be delisted (because it's unused). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Naqsh-e Rustam

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 18:17:09 (UTC)

A panoramic view of Naqsh-e Rustam
Not for delisting: the recently promoted FP
Reason
Contains less information (i.e. a narrower FOV) than fairly recently promoted FP File:Naghsh-e rostam, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 20-24 PAN.jpg and is of lower resolution. Old FP was displaced three years ago.
Articles this image appears in
(minor usages, will be replaced on delisting)
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20101229 Naqsh e Rostam Shiraz Iran more Panoramic.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Female hardhead

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 19:13:34 (UTC)

A female hardhead duck
Reason
Contains very similar information to just-promoted FP File:Aythya australis female - Hurstville Golf Course.jpg. The new FP displaced the old FP in the article, and is of higher reolution.
Articles this image appears in
minor usages, will be replaced when delisting is likely
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Female Hardhead duck.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 00:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Lime Butterfly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 14:46:06 (UTC)

Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus, Bangalore, India
Reason
not as good as other image mentioned on talk page File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG
Articles this image appears in
none
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus.jpg
Nominator
Charlesjsharp ( talk)
  • Delist — Charlesjsharp ( talk) 14:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - although this contains the same information as File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG, that image is not used in the article. I agree one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for delisting this specific image is not clear. Maybe you should edit this nomination or withdraw/create another along the lines of the "most valued review" process. (We don't need a new type of nomination permanently, once we clear out the existing duplicates we should be fine with new nomination, if successful delist the old FP.) MER-C 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • MVR does not apply at FP. I have switched the image in the article. This one is clearly inferior and should I believe be delisted. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 21:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist now that the better one is in the main page. Mattximus ( talk) 13:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I may be biased given that I've taken the picture but I strongly believe this is better than the proposed one by Kadavoor. The composition is more appealing, wing details are better preserved, it is less tightly cropped and does not have a distracting twig behind its back. -- Muhammad (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Jee's high quality image has the wings all in focus, whereas forewing is blurred in this one. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • While that may be true, we should not keep since it is not in any article, which means it should be delisted per featured nomination rules, no? Mattximus ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I've also removed image from Valley of Flowers NP article as the image description says taken in Bangalore. Charlesjsharp ( talk) 09:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Although there is no consensus to delist the image, it's unused and therefore can't retain its featured status. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist: Zabriskie Point

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 19:20:54 (UTC)

A panoramic view of Zabriskie Point
Reason
Booted out of its article 10 years ago, unused, superseded by higher resolution Commons FP File:Zbriskie Point South Panorama 2012.jpg. See companion nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zbriskie Point.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point Panorama
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Crepsular rays

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2019 at 20:18:19 (UTC)

Crepsular rays poking out from behind a cloud
Reason
Unused, low resolution. For such a photogenic phenomenon, we should demand a higher standard and/or unusual image.
Articles this image appears in
The empty set.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular rays color.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Zabriskie Point (2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2019 at 20:06:22 (UTC)

A second panorama from Zabriskie Point
Reason
Another unused FP of this subject, this one booted out a mere 9.75 years ago. Superseded by File:Zbriskie Point South Panorama 2012.jpg.
Articles this image appears in
The empty set.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Charlesjsharp ( talk) 22:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - per nom. Mattximus ( talk) 13:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist really good for 2007-era FPs, and were it still in use, I might call for it to be kept. But no. (Of course, per the not-used-in-articles rule, the voting doesn't matter much) Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 22:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – Bammesk ( talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 21:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Matterhorn

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 09:39:26 (UTC)

Matterhorn (4,478 m, Walliser Alps, East side) mirrored in Riffelsee, photograph taken from shore of lake Riffelsee.
Reason
Unused, possibly oversaturated, not up to modern standards re: landscapes - in particular noticeable posterisation/JPEG artifacts in the sky.
Articles this image appears in
Zippo
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Matterhorn Riffelsee 2005-06-11 crop.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist -- Walk Like an Egyptian ( talk) 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I honestly believe that this is a high-quality image and has no major issues preventing it from staying at the featured status. Goveganplease ( talk) 05:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
    • One of the guidelines states that "If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted." Also, the standards have changed over time, so it's expected that photos are taken at a much higher resolution. -- Walk Like an Egyptian ( talk) 06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – noisy and oversaturated, I don't see posterization, I am Ok with the pixel count for older FPs. I like that it shows the lake, the other images in the article don't show it. I am neutral on the nom. Bammesk ( talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - Unused Mattximus ( talk) 19:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delist - Its unused, but I think it should be used DannyS712 ( talk) 06:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Although there is no consensus to delist the image, it's unused and therefore can't retain its featured status. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Unidentified Papilio larva and Crepidinae sp. flower

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 15:37:03 (UTC)

A Papilio genus caterpillar, promoted under the belief it was Papilio demodocus
a Crepidinae sp. flower, originally promoted as Taraxacum officinale
Reason
Per commons:File talk:Unidentified Papilio larva Stratford Butterfly Farm (1).jpg there are substantial doubts as to the identity of this caterpillar, hence why it is no longer used in any articles. The Crepidinae sp. was originally identified as Taraxacum officinale, this has also been disputed. Both are beautifully shot, but the lack of accepted identification screws them over.
Articles this image appears in
N/A
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Papilio demodocus larva Stratford Butterfly Farm (1).jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Taraxacum officinale
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs

Delisted both images. -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist: Probably-not Caligo eurilochus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 00:57:34 (UTC)

Passed as Caligo eurilochus, probably actually some species of Eryphanis.
Reason
Similar to the below (and I wish I had included it there), but with a very confusing edit history - it looks like a copy-move - this is another image where it was thought to be one thing, this is disputed, crap, oh well, not really useable now. Again, an excellent image let down by documentation.
Articles this image appears in
N/A
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Caligo eurilochus 3 Richard Bartz.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 00:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Homoneura

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2019 at 17:31:10 (UTC)

A pair of unidentified insects mating.
Reason
Species unidentified, not used in any articles. Furthermore there is a comment on the talk page that the genus could also be wrong - "This is not Homoneura, these could be Peplomyza - but you would need a pinned specimen to be sure".
Articles this image appears in
Void
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Homoneura sp.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Camponotus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2019 at 09:04:36 (UTC)

An unidentified ant
Reason
Unidentified and not used in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
Nada
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Camponotus sp. ant.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 10:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Armenian Genocide

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 10:35:13 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide map
Reason
See the discussion here. There are numerous issues relating to the clarity of this map, and the fact that the key doesn't seem complete. Some of these issues were also raised at the original FPC and weren't really resolved, so I think it's dubious if this should have even been promoted in the first place.
Articles this image appears in
Armenian Genocide, Western Armenia
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Armenian_Genocide
Nominator
 —  Amakuru ( talk)
  • Delist —  —  Amakuru ( talk) 10:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agreed with the pull from the main page, per the concerns raised by Edwardx. There are clear deficiencies in the key both stylistic and substantive; it reads like it was translated by someone whose first language isn't English. Istanbul should be Constantinople. Beyond that, there seems to have been limited consideration in the original discussion of the details of the data in the map; I strongly agree with Nick-D that the map is confusing and attempts to present too much information. Espresso Addict ( talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - Specifically because there is no legend or explanation for the size of the circles. Mattximus ( talk) 14:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 03:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist The concerns I raised in the FPC have not been addressed. Nick-D ( talk) 05:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per above. MER-C 15:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 10:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Mycena

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2019 at 17:04:53 (UTC)

Either Mycena kuurkacea or Mycena toyerlaricola
Reason
Species not identified and not used in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
N/A
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycena sp.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Bufonaria perelegans

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 15:41:26 (UTC)

The shell of Bufonaria perelegans.
Reason
Not used in any articles because it has been replaced by a higher resolution image that contains more information. (The replacement isn't quite up to FP standards - it was a little overexposed, the edit made it worse to the point of blown highlights.)
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bufonaria perelegans
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – Bammesk ( talk) 01:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Although, really, voting hardly matters if it isn't used. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 01:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    Well, there is the (in this case, very small) chance someone could find a use for the image or address some of the documentation concerns. MER-C 19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Charlesjsharp ( talk) 16:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 22:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Grapsus grapsus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2019 at 14:47:58 (UTC)

Grapsus grapsus
Reason
To be replaced by File:Zayapa (Grapsus grapsus), Las Bachas, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 30.jpg (see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grapsus grapsus). This image is no longer used in the animal article.
Articles this image appears in
Minor usages, will be replaced if the other image is successful
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red rock crab
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 14:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Not a bad image, by any means. just not as good. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. They're both good images but there can be only one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per above. Geoffroi ( talk) 18:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Agree they are both good, but there should be only 1. Mattximus ( talk) 22:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply


Delist: Unidentified newborn bat.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 20:26:24 (UTC)

A neonate of an insectivorous microbat, surely, not a frugivorous megabat
Reason
This is clearly misidentified. Copying from my post on the Commons file talk page, This article states that newborns of this species weigh ca. 11g at birth. Little brown bats, for example, weigh 5.5–12.5 g as adults. Look at the size of an adult little brown bat relative to the human hand, though [2]. They're small, but definitely not small enough to sit on a fingertip. This is definitely a wrong identification. I believe this image thus fails 5 and 6 of the Featured picture criteria. We may never know the real ID of this bat neonate, giving this image limited encyclopedic value.
Articles this image appears in
none anymore
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lesser short-nosed fruit bat
Nominator
Enwebb ( talk)
  • Delist — Enwebb ( talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist, at least until the identification can be sorted out. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 06:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Charlesjsharp ( talk) 11:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Delist nominee has some problem. User agreed that cannot give a definitive answer, and this is not megabat, but Lesser short-nosed fruit bat. Again user talk about weight, why he/she can't describe/object by size? Look at here and tell where it fits? I took it in Sri Lanka. Your disbelief should be with reliable fact. Give me factual explanation than disbelief. -- Antan O 16:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This article says weight 30 to 100 g, length 70 to 127 mm. -- Antan O 16:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Cynopterus sphinx is a species of megabat as it is in the family Pteropodidae. Not only is this neonate clearly of a different family based on size, let alone the same genus and species, but it is clearly a different family because it has a tragus clearly visible in the photograph. Bats in Pteropodidae do not have tragi [3]. No, I don't know what this bat species is (which makes two of us). I know with certainty that it is not this species though, which is enough to say that it shouldn't be a FP. Enwebb ( talk) 18:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Why do you talk about Cynopterus sphinx. It is Lesser short-nosed fruit bat and it has tragus. If you reject the ID, give correct one with reference. I photographed with context awareness and I know what are the spices were there. I have given the geo location too. You just oppose without valid reason. -- Antan O 03:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Apologies for the incorrect scientific name. You are correct, it is labeled as Cynopterus brachyotis. No, that species doesn't have a tragus. It is a megabat and megabats do not have tragi. I provided a reference above. My reason for oppposing (and everyone else's) is that you have incorrectly identified this bat species. Bats are generally identified using an adult specimen in hand with a dichotomous key. Measurements such as forearm length, greatest length of skull, weight, hind foot length, ear length, and echolocation characteristics are all used. I will not be making a positive ID of this species and I shouldn't have to, because I'm not the one who uploaded it to Commons. It's not my job to fix your ID. As someone who spends many hours working on bat articles, however, I am taking these steps because your erroneous ID is harming public knowledge. Enwebb ( talk) 03:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC) reply
First link given is for Greater short-nosed fruit bat, and second link for Little brown bat which is 5.5–12.5 g (as adults). But, I named it for Lesser short-nosed fruit bat which is 21 - 32 g / 30 - 100 g (as adults). Therefore, newborn can sit on finger. Also, Lesser short-nosed fruit bat has tragi/ear, and you can see it. You said Pteropodidae do not have tragi. What is that ear-shaped portion? Have you ever seen newborn of Lesser short-nosed fruit bat? You just referring from book knowledge. But, I have seen and photographed where Lesser short-nosed fruit bats come to eat fruits. There is no Greater short-nosed fruit bat or Little brown bat (which is not in Sri Lanka). A few were trapped at a house when they changed flight and gave birth. There was 99% change for Lesser short-nosed fruit bat unless 1% change for microbat which infiltrated to that house! -- Antan O 17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
The pinna are the external ears. Megabats have ears/pinna. The tragi are cartilage flaps in front of the ear opening. Megabats don't have tragi. The bat pictured has a tragus in front of its ear. Therefore it cannot be the species you say it is (nor any bat in that family). Enwebb ( talk) 18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply
You can't conclude from a baby bat. It is common. Also, it has similarity ears like adult of its spices. -- Antan O 03:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - on enwiki's FPC process, it's important to get the species right (and it should be used in articles). Ideally, when we find a misidentification, we would also find the correct identification, but it sounds like that's an exceedingly difficult task by photo alone. Unless someone else can provide an alternative, we should thus delist. Commons FP status is less of a problem, though. Misidentification isn't good, but I don't know how willing people would be to delist just on that basis... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. Not in use, not clearly identified. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • How to clearly identify? -- Antan O 16:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Australian Pelican

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2019 at 10:32:41 (UTC)

An Australian Pelican.
Reason
Not used in any articles. File:Pelecanus conspicillatus - Doughboy Head.jpg is a better image.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 10:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Charlesjsharp ( talk) 08:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. It's a striking image but too low-res by current standards and the lack of use means we must delist. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – Bammesk ( talk) 00:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – I'll take the fifth. -- Janke | Talk 11:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per David. Geoffroi 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply



Replace: Allotropes of carbon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 18:31:20 (UTC)

Eight allotropes of carbon
Proposed replacement
Reason
Replaced by SVG. Even so, not too fussed if this gets delisted - I think this diagram is not complex enough to be FP and the SVG replacement could have better presentation, particularly representing the carbon atoms with dots (as seen in the current FP).
Articles this image appears in
Allotropes of carbon, Carbon, Nonmetal
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Six Allotropes of Carbon
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist or replace — MER-C 18:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. In theory I'm a big fan of replacing png by svg when possible. In practice, in this instance, I'm not sure about the quality of the replacement. In the png version, we have a classic ball-and-stick visualization of the molecules, with atoms represented as small balls and bonds represented as cylinders with visible thickness. Both are shaded, differently, to indicate their three-dimensional nature. Additionally, farther-away objects are shown in proper perspective (with smaller-looking balls and thinner-looking cylinders), making the depth of each object in each diagram clear. In the svg version, all we have is featureless line segments where the sticks were, no balls, and no easy way to see which objects are supposed to be closer and which farther. So I think some significant quality is lost. On the other hand, if we're going to use the svg in our articles going forward instead of the png, we can't continue to list the png as featured. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    I agree with this sentiment entirely. I've informed the author of the SVG version so that they can make these improvements. MER-C 16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    Delist, no replace. As it is both images are unsuitable (png: wrong format, unused in article space; svg: inadequate quality compared to png). — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Although the nomination didn't reach quorum, the file needs to be delisted (because it's unused). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Bush cockroach

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 11:11:30 (UTC)

An unidentified cockroach
Reason
Species not identified, not used in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bush Cockroach.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 11:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist, though it's pretty much just procedural at this point. No articles = no FP, and an unidentified photo isn't appropriate for articles. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 17:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Can we not have an automated process that removes FP from any image not in an article (for say a month) after photographer and nominator have been notified? Charlesjsharp ( talk) 19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • It may be worth giving a public chance for the image to be reinstated, and, rarely, there are cases where we feature, say, an image divided into parts (not that usable in articles, but best quality) and the still-pretty-big combined file. But maybe an expedited process, like, a list of proposed delists of that sort, that auto-delist if no-one objects? This'll help catch cases where, to give a couple recent examples, the wrong image of a set gets deleted when an image was moved to the infobox ( Les Troyens), the image was replaced, usually by an IP, with a much poorer replacement (several cases), or where a delist-and-replace process would be better (The Currier-and-Ives Assassination of Lincoln, say). It also makes Wikibreaks a bit less dangerous. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Some percentage of the time a good image is replaced with a crappy one. So automating is a little dangerous. JJ Harrison ( talk) 23:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. -- Basile Morin ( talk) 08:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Bryce Canyon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:41:56 (UTC)

A panorama of the Bryce Canyon Amphitheater in Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah.
Reason
Not used in any articles - this is one of those subjects that chews through FPs. File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg and File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunrise Point Highres 2013.jpg cover this subject and meet modern FP standards.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg
Nominator
MER-C
  • Delist — MER-C 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist. The procedural reasons for the delist are clear. And its replacement, File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg, has better composition, resolution, and I think color, although I'm not entirely convinced of the naturality of the color of either image. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The replacement certainly looks more like the bits I've seen around there (I've been to Utah, but not Bryce Canyon specifically). Lots of red sandstone up there, and arid conditions - think Monument Valley. The one up for delisting - Oh, Delist, of course. If it matters - reminds me of 1970s/80s magazine colour reproduction; they were consistently off in that sort of direction. That sky! Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 03:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Geoffroi 00:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist Charlesjsharp ( talk) 13:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Dragonfly compound eyes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 15:01:14 (UTC)

An unidentified dragonfly.
Reason
Species not identified, not used in any articles. This is a bit of a shame, though - the photo would have excellent EV otherwise, and a modern replacement would easily be FP.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 19:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Chrysopilus Snipe fly

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2019 at 16:48:20 (UTC)

A female snipe fly of genus, Chrysopilus
Reason
Species not identified, not used in any articles.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysopilus Snipe fly.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply


Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Eastern yellow robin (Victoria, Australia 2008).jpg

Delist: Stereogram

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2019 at 10:47:36 (UTC)

Asiatic hybrid lilium stereogram. To view the image diverge your eyes until four images appear, then allow the image to converge to a set of three, focusing on the centre image.
Not for delisting: the recently promoted FP
Reason
Not used in any articles. Recently promoted FP File:Passiflora caerulea STEREO (R-L) 2019-06-27.jpg is functionally equivalent.
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Asiatic hybrid lillium stereogram.jpg
Nominator
MER-C

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 11:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: Lugano

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 01:49:02 (UTC)

One of Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii's very early colour photos.
Alt 2 - see text
Reason
The image that was promoted, [4], shows that with careful colour balancing to match the original filters, this image can be extremely gorgeous. It was overwritten with a vastly inferior copy, however, so it's no wonder it's left articles again. The three original plates are available, and it may well interest someone to attempt to redo the work at high-quality, but this... is not that. I don't think Gorski used the exact modern Cyan-yellow-magenta colours - or, if he did, they need a little tweaking as to intensity - and it shows. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 01:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Articles this image appears in
none.
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lugano in 1909
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 01:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why delist, when it is easy to fix - Alt 2 is just an example, can be done even better - if someone (hint, hint) spends a little more than my 45 seconds at the RGB level sliders... -- Janke | Talk 07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist — Not that easy to fix, I don't think? As well as the colour balance issues, there's substantial colour banding (made more obvious in the alt) and lots of damage; I think it would need to go back to the original plates. I don't think that, in this state, it's one of Prokudin-Gorsky's best - compare his photo of the Monastery of St Nil for example. TSP ( talk) 12:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Also, where would we put it? Lugano? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 18:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
      • If restored, it could replace the photo at Lugano#19th century. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 07:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
        • It's a more informative view of the town, but I'm a bit confused over why we would replace one 20th-century image by another to illustrate a section about the 19th century. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
          • I think it would be useful in Lugano, perhaps in the 19th century section - it's a 20th-century image, but it illustrates the 19th-century development discussed in that section. TSP ( talk) 14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist – The ideal solution is to restore the three plates individually and recompose the color photograph. That is way beyond my skill level. Hopefully someone will. Either way the result is delisting as this file should remain as is and the new restoration would be a new file. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not so sure about restoring individually, exactly. You'd want to have them as three layers while restoring them, so you could pixel-perfect match outlines and shapes. because even an outline being shifted just one pixel off would make for ugly haloing. Restoration generally isn't nearly that exact on unimportant details (E.g. if there's a blob over a patch of blurry grass, you'd just healing brush some blurry grass from elsewhere - but that would lead to colour craziness if it was only one layer in an RGB set, because it probably wouldn't match the grass in that area on the other layers), but would need to be here. Only thing worse than that is both halves of a stereoscopic image, where no mainstream image program will let you properly view the image in order to match properly. There's a reason we've only ever featured half of any historical stereoscope shot. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 09:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per above. The original FP falls way short of modern resolution requirements, so reverting the new upload will not address the reasons for delisting. MER-C 17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per disuse and current lack of an adequate-quality replacement. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist per others. Geoffroi 05:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted -- Armbrust The Homunculus 01:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply



Other

Delist: Parts of the "Early Flight" set

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 22:54:25 (UTC)

Reason
Quite simply, they aren't used in articles, and, offhand, I don't see any particularly good place where they could be used: the first two are random collections of images, and the third doesn't have a clear message. The last one might be salvageable. Original nomination was kind of weird, but it was from back in 2007. That said, this was a 22-item set, so that (apparently) 18 images are stable and in use is impressive. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Articles this image appears in
None
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early flight 02562u.jpg
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs
Sorry but we don't "have much better photographs of those" - these images show the pioneers, and photography wasn't yet invented at the time of these balloons / balloonists !!! ;-) -- Janke | Talk 19:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist As not used, by definition they cannot be FP -- Charlesjsharp ( talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The middle image is now added to the page History of ballooning, so at leat that one is eligible. -- Janke | Talk 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Since every subimage of that set is in articles except the third image in this set, I'm not so sure that's the wisest choice. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am inclined to Keep the two set-images. I added them to History of aviation#Balloons where five of the events are described, hoping the images stay there long term. If you disagree feel free to revert. Bammesk ( talk) 03:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • If the two set-images ( File:Early flight 02561u.jpg, File:Early flight 02562u.jpg) stick, then keep them. I guess the rest have to be delisted, unless someone else finds a home for them. MER-C 20:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Suspend nomination to give the first two images time to stabilize in articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Kept File:Early_flight_02561u.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Kept File:Early flight 02562u.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • No consensus to delist the above two featured pictures. As the images are still used (were added back in an article more than seven days), it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted File:Early flight 02562u (1).jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Delisted File:Early flight 02561u (8).jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist and Replace: Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 11:15:49 (UTC)

Original
Proposed replacement
Reason
The picture used on the subject's article was changed in 2016, for the current version which has brighter looking blues. The proposed replacement was uploaded by Pimbrils with the comment "Better version frorm [5], with slight color adjustment". I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, so will leave it to the community to assess which one is better, and we can retain that as FP and use it in all the affected articles. Thanks  —  Amakuru ( talk) 11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Articles the original image appears in
History of painting · Self-portrait · Western painting · Women artists · Women letter writers
Articles the proposed replacement appears in
Portrait of Susanna Lunden · Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun
Nominator
 —  Amakuru ( talk)
  • Neutral. As nominator I'm putting this out there for the reasons above, but I don't have a strong opinion myself. —  —  Amakuru ( talk) 11:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to Original - Honestly, these "slight colour adjustment"s to paintings never seem to care much about how they actually look. They're being presented as an example of her art, not just as a representation of her; we should be as close to the art as possible. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 16:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to original. The current FP is also sourced to the National Gallery and is unaltered, hence is authoritative. It is also of higher resolution. MER-C 17:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to original - As per above. Mattximus ( talk) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Revert to original – per Adam above. Also the original is a FP already. I think we can just use it, regardless of this nom. Bammesk ( talk) 17:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Proposed Replacement. I actually like the proposed replacement, the color adjustment seem to be slight and given more texture to the painting. Gnosis ( talk) 20:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Revert to original (Which was already done by Adam Cuerden) -- Armbrust The Homunculus 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC) reply



Delist: A miscellany

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 09:32:25 (UTC)

N.B. I know this is big, but I'd suggest we just run this as "Does anyone think these are good enough to put these in articles?", since they auto-delist if not in use. This is to help the cleanup on WT:FPC.

  • A house sparrow
    A house sparrow
  • Robberflies mating
    Robberflies mating
  • Motocross racing
    Motocross racing
  • Ulysses butterfly
    Ulysses butterfly
  • White peach
    White peach
  • Mammatus cloud panorama
    Mammatus cloud panorama
  • Giraffe head
    Giraffe head
  • Jacky winter
    Jacky winter
Reason
Combined because of similar reasoning. All are unused images by Fir0002. For ca. 2006, they're quite good, but they're A. unused in articles. B. Kind of low resolution by modern standards, and C. That GDFL/CC-NC cross that, while I don't really want to delist over as a sole reason as I understand the motivation, would never pass nowadays. With all three of these the case, we may as well delist. Fir left in 2013, and hasn't been on except to update the contact information on his user page since.
Articles this image appears in
None.
Previous nomination/s
Nominator
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs
  • Delist — Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 09:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist - For anyone not in the know, one of the requirements of GDFL is that the reuser must copy the full text of the license every time they use the work. That's because GDFL was designed for software, where that's no big deal, and not for images. That makes these effectively commercially non-free in any medium outside the internet. For that reason, these photos would not even be allowed for upload to Commons as of last October. As is fairly well communicated in the attached custom user template, this amounts to "call me and we'll talk about payment". If a worst case scenario, this type of licensing can amount to baiting for careless reusers, to set them up for copyright trolling, which is part of why Commons depreciated it. GMG talk 10:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I disagree with the bundling of this nomination - not all of these images are obvious delists. I recommend the nominator withdraw this and nominate the images for delisting individually. To wit:
    • House sparrow: I'm surprised at the low quality of images in the article. File:House Sparrow, England - May 09.jpg is a better image. Delist.
    • Robberflies mating: delist, species not identified.
    • Motorcross: the composition of this one is better than all the others in Motorcross.
    • Ulysses butterfly: replaced with File:Papilio ulysses ambiguus Rothschild, 1895.JPG in its article. I think this is a regression in EV, it doesn't show habitat.
    • Peach: just removed, not replaced with anything. Could reinsert, I guess.
    • Mammatus cloud: again, I'm surprised at the low quality of images in the article. In fact, this might even be the best image we have of this phenomena.
    • File:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo edit.jpg is used but obsolete. Replace with File:Giraffa camelopardalis head (Profil).jpg, then delist. I have replaced, so delist the giraffe head too.
    • Jacky Winter: keep - I've reinserted it into the article, showing nesting means it wasn't obsolete.
  • I have no opinion on images 3 and 5. MER-C 11:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist anything not in use at the end of the FPC period. Anything that is in use we can revisit in a more focussed nom if necessary. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with adding back photos of Ulysses butterfly and Mammatus cloud into the articles (I agree with MER-C's comments, above, on these two photos). I am neutral on adding back the White peach photo (BTW there is no photo of a whole peach, not nectarine, in the peach article). Bammesk ( talk) 01:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ MER-C and Bammesk: Thanks for that. As I said, I think this is a useful exercise in evaluating a set of images with similar problems, but varying mitigating factors, but its success depends on actually saving the ones worth saving. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Josh's comments above about delisting. Bammesk ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC) . . . Delist unused images. Bammesk ( talk) 03:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delist all remaining unused – GDFL/CC-NC cross is not ideal. White peach is now used so keep that photo.---  Coffeeand crumbs 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

To simplify things for Armbrust, here are the ones unused, as of right now: Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 04:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Delisted File:Sparrow on ledge.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Delisted File:Common brown robberflies mating.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Delisted File:MotoX racing03 edit.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Kept File:Ulysses Butterfly - melbourne zoo.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Kept File:White peach and cross section edit.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Kept File:Mammatus cloud panorama.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Delisted File:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo edit.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
Kept File:Jacky winter nesting.jpg -- Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2019&oldid=1036873554"