Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/archived removal requests 2

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 INFO SEE Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

• Archive 1 (2006)
• Archive 2 (2007)

Contents 1 Retained 1.1 Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore 1.2 Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg 1.3 Root canal illustratoin 1.4 Geisha and Client 1.5 Rolling thunder cloud 1.6 Physical map of the Philippines 1.7 Long Beach, CA at night 1.8 Chicago Skyline 2 1.9 Airport traffic pattern 1.10 Aerospike XRS-2200 engine 1.11 Henry Moore Reclining Figure 1951 1.12 Yarra Panorama 1.13 Hansom Cab 1.14 First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina 1.15 Wake Vortex Study at Wallops Flight Facility 1.16 American Buffalo Gold Coin 1.17 Pahoeoe fountain 2 Delisted 2.1 Korea gyeongbokgung 2.2 High-cemetry-circle 2.3 Pitstone-windmill 2.4 Champs elysees 2.5 Notre Dame Basillica 2.6 BDSM collar back 2.7 City Hall, London 2.8 Glass ball 2.9 Lincoln Cent 2.10 Mackerel sky over Edmonton, Alberta 2.11 Sochi edited 2.12 Geisha 2.13 Chicago skyline at sunset 2.14 Peacock 2.15 Brisbane by night 2.16 Euro symbol 2.17 USB flash drive 2.18 Sun Halo

[edit] Retained

[edit] Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore

Reason

Perspective is confusing without more context; we have much better pictures of both the airplane and the mountain, and this is a better picture of both. Currently slated for POTD for Jan. 30. Chick Bowen 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Chick Bowen

• Delist — Chick Bowen 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep imagine taking that shot! Wow, very interesting picture. Really considering it is actually pretty clear, and technically not bad. Arjun 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't see it as all that impressive. I imagine it was taken from an escort plane. This image strikes me as more impressive in the combination of composition and timing, and this one in rarity and sheer luck. Chick Bowen 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this picture should be featured merely for the fact that it is an extremely rare photograph of the right side of Air Force One. Noclip 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. All of these grainy images need to go; they're unacceptable as FPs. The right side of Air Force One is basically the same as the left, so no big deal there. It being over mount rushmore doesn't do much for me and if anything it's just a huge ugly brown field in the image and detracts somewhat from the subject. --froth^T 08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The right side is the one with all the classified stuff, even if you can't see it from the outside. Most other photos show the left side, though a flip could take care of that...--HereToHelp 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: It's a great and unique image even if it was accidental -- which may not be the case. --Mactographer 12:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I like this image it is very cool.Bewareofdog 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very nice picture, and definitely better than the other that the nominator showed. Joe 04:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Visually stunning and difficult to reproduce. Excellent at "drawing you in" to the article. —Dgies^t c 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is not up for POTD on January 30, 2007 -- it was January 30, 2006. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, bother I hate the new year. Yes, quite right, sorry. Chick Bowen 02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn; I wouldn't have nominated if I hadn't forgotten what year it was. Chick Bowen 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar eclips 1999 4 NR.jpg

Promotion discussion: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Solar eclips 1999 4.jpg

Reason

The image is blocky and blurry, there exist countless of jpeg artifacts. the colors are rather strange, it has many overbright spots, and I can see many flying blocks over the moon!

Nominator

_→AzaToth

• Delist — _→AzaToth 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That is an excellent picture of a solar eclipse. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The corona is a veritable artifact feast. ~ trialsanderrors 08:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This was promoted only a 4 months ago with almost unanimous support. It must have been exceptionally hard to take, and I feel it is well worthy of FP status --Fir0002 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It must have been hard to get the timing right (the sun's corona can be seen all around the edges). | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delist. It's a shame that such an excellent shot has to be delisted but the artifacts in the corona are really just too much --froth^{T C} 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- An exceptional photo of an event that is hard to capture and doesn't come around too often. Imaninjapirate^{talk to me} 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep just imagine trying to take this pic! Look as you can see the sun's corona around the whole part of the moon, the timing is perfect. — Arjun 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This picture is amazing!! You should keep it as featured. Daniel10 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I love this photo. It terrifically captures a fascinating natural phenomenal like few others. It definitely should remain an FP. Ackatsis 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep An incredible photograph that embodies the spirit of the Feature Picture. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is no other also good image to illustrate such a technical subject ;-) --Luc Viatour 00:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In reference to the original complaints: Blurriness is largely a symptom of difficult-to-improve faults in the camera and/or the diffraction limit. What you are calling JPEG artifacts are probably also diffraction and/or sensor noise, the "strange colors" are actually correct, and overbright spots? come on, it's the sun! This is a very technically challenging photograph which is about as well executed as could be expected. —Dgies^t c 20:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• For comparison, here is the flickr "most interesting" list for "solar eclipse". ~ trialsanderrors 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Dgies said it well. What subject could have more difficult lighting conditions than an eclipse, with the contrast between the ultimate light source and the darkest of shadows, while the photographer is in the shadow. It's hard to claim that any 'strange' phenomenon in the photo could have been eliminated with a different process or equipment, and even so you would have to wait a long long time for the next eclipse to find out. --207.38.206.107 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Bridgecross 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above keepers. I personally really like this photo. Yuser31415 04:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept as Featured Picture Raven4x4x 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Root canal illustratoin

Reason

A nice diagram but it's not FP-worthy. Maybe if it was SVG I'd be wowed by it enough to hold off on the delist for a couple years :)

Nominator

froth^{T C}

• Delist — froth^{T C} 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I saw this on my page too (I get the FP a week in advance) and I considered applying for a delist. On second thought, however, I realized that the diagram is actually pretty cool, considering it's surgery on the inner pulp of the tooth. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist — Ha! I was just about to nominate this image, but you beat me to the punch. It's too small and could VERY easily be traced into SVG format. If someone converts it to SVG, I will gladly support the FPC for that version. ♠ SG →Talk 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with SVG. ♠ SG →Talk 01:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but strongly endorse replacing with SVG version. —Dgies^t c 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with SVG version. —Dgies^t c 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I like the picture--it's very informative--so I'll get to tracing it. Jellocube27 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Traced I traced the picture. Hope it is satisfactory ;) Jellocube27 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It's off by 200 pixels in length for being 1000 pixels, but if it was big enough I would support it as a featured picture. Why1991 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it just about does the job at the current resolution, but strongly encourage conversion to SVG. ed g2s • talk 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per ed g2s --Fir0002 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, effective illustration, though I'd encourage creation of a vector version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In addition to my above delist vote, the image is also saved in PNG-8 format, as you can clearly see the dithering. So, not only is the image below resolution and not SVG, it's not even in the right lossless PNG format (PNG-24). unsigned comment by SG
  • Ah, that should put a nail in this one's coffin --froth^{T C} 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I contacted the original uploader some time ago and asked for an SVG version. However, I don't think he's been able to find the original file, which was drawn in Illustrator (so an SVG conversion should be simple as doing a SAVE AS command). howcheng {chat} 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This makes me squirm even more than the eye surgery photo. I think this should stay until a higher resolution replacement is created. Spebudmak 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with SVG trace. Spebudmak 21:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with the SVG trace one. In any case, the SVG one should appear on the front page in a couple days instead of the lossy PNG one since they're basically the same except for the format. One tiny comment though.. would it be possible to make the head on the drill a little (realistically) smaller? It looks like a toy --froth^T

^C 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment done-- clear your cache! Sorry, I don't know anything about dentistry! Any more comments on the drawing, please tell :) Jellocube27 09:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Perfect good job --froth^{T C} 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• I've replaced the picture of the day with the .svg-- if there are any objections, please voice them soon! Jellocube27 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Objection I did it days ago :p --froth^{T C} 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the comments here, I take it that the SVG version will be shown as the 12 January POTD.[1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with SVG version Raven4x4x 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geisha and Client

Reason

no caption, nothing special

Nominator

Wutschwlllm

• Delist — Wutschwlllm 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fix the caption. And just stating nothing special is a little thin as an argument. From the nomination page Beyond the manufactured imagery of Hollywood, this is a rare glimpse of what a real geisha looks like when she is working in the evening -- when the simple act of lighting a cigar becomes art. For the sake of authenticity and out of respect for the original tradition [this picture was nominated]. --Dschwen 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the first nomination. — Arjun 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The image has some encyclopaedic value but it is not at all pleasing to my eyes (partly because of the unpleasant flash illumination and image noise). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Blow highlights! She's entirely white! ;P 24.239.185.63 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Looks like a typical photograph, probably reproducable. --Tewy 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm going entirely off of Howcheng here, in that it's not a very common image. My comment about it being a typical photograph stands, however. --Tewy 07:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. This does not represent WP's best work. Witty lama 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Nothing special about the image. Also very grainy. And blown highlights per 24.239.185.63 :) --froth^{T C} 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Do you know how difficult is to get a picture of a real geisha? First of all, Japanese people are rarely ever allowed the chance to be entertained by a geisha, and non-Japanese even rarer. Then to actually have her and the client allow themselves to be photographed in a shot that could be widely reproduced? Tewy says it's probably reproducible and I would argue that it's not all likely. If you were lucky enough to even gain audience with a geisha, most photography would have to be of a private nature. howcheng {chat} 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist It doesn't fit the size requirements, it's hardly encyclopedic, and it has no caption. Why1991 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Hardly encyclopedic"? Sorry, but I don't see how you can say that. This is a real geisha, not a movie image or a stereotype. Compare this with the picture of the two maiko (also up for delist) and see the world of difference. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Check again, it -does- fit the size requirements.24.239.185.63 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I really like the photo. --Bernard 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Real geisha? Big deal. If they don't want to be photographed, that doesn't mean their photographs should be considered "rare" and FP --froth^{T C} 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Uhm, actually, that's pretty much the definition of rare. If they don't like to be photographed, that means that not many photographs of real geisha are in existance, which makes it rare. Also, please change your delist in the above to comment, as you've already voted for delist. Makes it less confusing. 24.239.185.63 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ah sorry I had forgotten that I had already voted. But my point was that if I started my own little ninja clan that refused to be photographed nobody would even care and I would definately not get FP if some paparazzi got a shot of me. So that shouldn't necessarily be criteria for FP.. although I definately don't dispute the enc of the Geisha article --froth^{T C} 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Pictures of your ninja clan would still be rare. Notability is the main difference. --Dschwen 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Froth is right, if they don't want to be photographed, then too bad. --Arad 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per original nomination. --Bridgecross 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Its rare. 'nuf said. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Rare and encyclopedic.A mcmurray 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - convinced by Howcheng and other 'hard to replace' defenders. highlunder 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Not WP best work. And after all, is there any true evidence that this is rare? I still think any one interested in the art can pose like this. Even if it's rare, it's still not the best work. --Arad 22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I am siding towards delisting due to the aesthetics and quality of this image, I feel there is a big difference between an actual geisha in action and someone interested in the art dressing up as a geisha. Thats like the difference between a rare photo of Marilyn Monroe naked and a Marilyn impersonator posing naked. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • lol. Actaully, there is only one Marilyn Monroe and that only one is dead. As long as i know, Japan is not out of Geishas and this is not the only Geisha. ;-) --Arad 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but the point is that real geishas do no often allow themselves to be photographed, and that a mocked up image of a geisha would not be encyclopedic. Perhaps a simpler analogy would be getting someone to dress up as a New York Yankee and then using that to illustrate a baseball player.
        • Correct. The number of people who get to actually meet a real geisha in their lifetime is ridiculously small. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • How can you prove that this is a real geisha? I'm not saying it's not, but if I make an exact same image, with a fake geisha, and a superior quality, and never tell anyone that the geisha is fake, who would know that it is in fact fake? But if i do the same to (for example) Marilyn Monroe, if she was alive, she could say that the image is fake. I just want to say that Geishas are not going to disappear in one day, and I'm really sorry if they don't want to be photographed. --Arad 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per rarity, and in the spirit of fighting this tide of delists. Debivort 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• delist.we need to find a better picture68.61.233.160 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Incredible picture that just needs a caption. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Wonderful caption, Dschwen. ♠ SG →Talk 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question Why geishas don't want to be photographed? I've never heard that they don't want to. Maybe because I'm not interested in the but I'll be happy to know why they don't want to be photographed. In their wiki article, there's nothing about this, and i searched on Internet, i found nothing. --Arad 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the question, what I think it is is the fact that Geishas are rare, are rarely photographed. Arjun 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - this photo...honestly, as a geisha "expert," I can't stress how rare an image like this is. A Western buisnessman being tended by a real geisha? At an ozashiki? If we delist this, FP doesn't mean anything. I feel very strongly that we keep it. --Iriseyes 15:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that FP is also about image quality, not just encyclopaedic value. A FP usually has both. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Where are you going to see an image like this.Bewareofdog 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept Raven4x4x 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling thunder cloud

Reason

cool pic, but too small and very bad quality

Nominator

Baseracer

• Delist — Baseracer 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This was nominated for delisting in July 2006 (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Thunder Cloud). --Tewy 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks great even though it's small. You just don't see that kind of thing every day. --Tewy 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is a keeper unless someone has been able to get a better shot of this phenomenon --froth^{T C} 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a bit iffy on today's standards if it were to go up today but works as a current one and there's no real issue big enough that I can see making it worth delisting. Cat-five - talk 11:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The clouds look quite interesting but the image quality is very bad (compression artifacts and low resolution). This is definitely not Wikipedia's best work. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very Very Weak Keep This is a hard one. One of the most fascinating pictures I've ever seen, but the size.....maybe somebody should contact the uploader, if he/she has access to a high-res version of this image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wutschwlllm (talk • contribs).
• Keep Per last time --Fir0002 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The linked "other version" (Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud-a.jpg) is higher resolution, but seems to have been upscaled from the original image, as it's blurry, artifacted, and lacking in detail.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, the smaller one is much better. --froth^{T C} 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I know it doen't fit the size requirement but it's such a good photo in every way that it deserves to stay. By the way someone should come up with a good caption. Why1991 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist A very cool pic but fails resolution and exhibits aliasing and compression artifacts. While it's a fairly rare shot, thunderstorms roll over major cities all the time. —Dgies^t c 19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Olegivvit 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist unfortunately it doesn't meet the requirements for FP. If it were to go through the process now it would be shot down. While it is an unusual/rare pic...that enough does not qualify it for Featured Picture. — Arjun 20:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic value overcomes any technical problems. --Arad 22:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. I'm going to buck the trend here. I don't think it should automatically be kept until someone else finds a better capture of the subject. It either is or isn't at a certain quality level. It can easily service the article competently without being featured. It is a spectacular image but the quality is just too poor for me to support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep. you dont see these things very often. 68.61.233.160 02:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - obvious rarity and enc value overcoming image quality - Alvesgaspar 11:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept Raven4x4x 01:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical map of the Philippines

Reason

resolution is below minimum resolution for Featured Pictures

Nominator

_→AzaToth

• Delist — _→AzaToth 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you inform the creator of this map (Seav) of this delist nomination? --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep erm, it is a map, how much larger does it need to be? I find it "very" informative and useful, clear and precise. And above all highly encyclopedic. — Arjun 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per arjun - 940px is also quite close to the resolution cut off. Debivort 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. It's a map. Why should this be featured? ... --froth^{T C} 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're not serious, right? Maps are promoted frequently because they reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, and meet the criteria. Promoting them to FP also encourages the creation of new high quality maps. Debivort 10:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• IMO maps definately aren't FPs unless they're SVG, detailed, easy-to-read, and of an interesting area. Fails them all. --froth^{T C} 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't detailed? The Philipines aren't an "interesting area?" Debivort 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• The text is blurry and small. --froth^{T C} 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Samll text makes for detailed text, almost by definition. And I think the text is aliased, rather than blurred. Debivort 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's highly unlikely that an SVG version can be created for this kind of map since the terrain/topography data is raster-based, not vector-based. --seav 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delist - While not terrible, wouldn't pass today. Not sure how much work it would be to trace an SVG version... probably too much with the terrain. —Dgies^t c 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• The terrain is raster data based on GTOPO30 so its highly unlikely that an SVG version can be produced for this map. --seav 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This map has been nominated for delisting before. The result is keep with the recommendation that a higher resolution version be made available. I still have to create that version. --seav 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is our only Wikipedian-created map with topographical data. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You can easly see where the cities are.Bewareofdog 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. While useful, this map does not particularly strike me as "the best" that Wikipedia can offer. If it's replaced with a scalable version, change my vote to keep. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• At the risk of being repetitive, a scalable version of this map is unlikely to be made because the topographic data is raster-based. --seav 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Raven4x4x 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well done map showing major physical features. Keeping might also inspire others to create similar maps for other countries. --Polaron | Talk 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Beach, CA at night

Reason

This is coming up for picture of the day, but at (1024x481, 104 KB) it doesn't seem to fulfill our size requirements is at the low end of our size requirements, but suffers from jpg artifacts (check the edges of the high rises) and lack of detail (close in on the promenade area). Detail of one of the problem areas added.

Nominator

trialsanderrors

• Delist — trialsanderrors 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - 1) a beautiful image, 2) it does meet the requirements which say at least 1000px in height or width, 3) barely missing a current technical requirement (not that this image does) shouldn't be a sufficient reason to delist, i.m.o. Debivort 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Note to self: doesn't hurt looking up the actual wording of the guideline once in a while. I adjusted the nomination accordingly. ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Size is never an enough reason for delisting. Unless it's very small. --Arad 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Meets the requirements but IMO it's much, much too small for a panorama --froth^{T C} 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Marginal on size, has compression artifacts. We can have higher standards for subjects which are easily accessible. —Dgies^t c 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Considering that this is a panorama, the size is too small in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact is, it meets size requirements. Saying it's too small, even for a panorama, shouldn't matter. Joe 23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The requirements are arbitrarily chosen and aren't set in stone; expectation for wikipedia's "very best" panoramas is much higher than for other images. --froth^{T C} 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Debivort --Fir0002 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't a panorama, BTW. It's originally a 1024x768 image that has been cropped. See the source page for the original. howcheng {chat} 06:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Debivort brings up some nice points. Arjun 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My Two Cents:-- I think delisting a photo from the past is like taking a gold medal from an athlete who won it in the 1936 Olympics because a modern athlete has performed better. Once you win an award, you should be able to keep it. -- Mactographer 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Featured represents the best Wikipedia can offer, and that standard can (and should) increase over time. Considering delisting is giving the photo a frank judgement based on current standards, i.e. if it was nominated now, would it pass? I don't think it would. Trebor 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delist per Dgies. It's a nice image, but we can get a much better shot for this kind of place. Trebor 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept Raven4x4x 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Skyline 2

Reason

Severe JPEG artifacting visible on many buildings. If the author uploads a less compressed version this nomination can be closed.

Nominator

Noclip

• Delist — Noclip 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I personally Like this image, while it has some (minor) problems, I see no reason to delist. Highly encyclopedic also. Arjun 04:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you just wanted a less-compressed version, why didn't you just ask the author first before coming to the delist process? howcheng {chat} 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever flaws I can see, it's still a very high detailed photo, one of the better skylines we have, and most important is brilliantly encyclopedic for the article. And it's much better than the other Chi-town skyline FP (which is also up for delisting below. Poor Chi-town). --Bridgecross 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • addendum I would like to refer to the the original nomination; support for this image was unanimous. Also a reminder; it is good form to inform the original nominator/author when putting an image up for delisting.
• Keep. Even if the detail on a specific building isn't great, having more or less all of the skyline together makes for a great pic...at hi rez...--HereToHelp 17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Week Keep The artifacts are pretty bad but the overall effect is what gives this pic its merit --froth^T 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the author of the image I of course would like to cast my vote to keep. It is a beautiful image and adds a significant contribution to the Chicago page. Every city with a skyline is proud of it and loves to show it off.
  • Comment As to the JPEG artifacts: This image is 4mb, the image which is not compressed is massive. Even at 4mb it takes people with slower connections a significant amount of time to dl. Since this encyclopedia is for everyone I think featured pictures and pictures in general should not be too large to enjoy. I personally have this image printed out at 6'x9" and it is georgeous and there are NO artifacts visible so to say that the slightly compressed one has "Severe" is a gross overstatement.Buphoff 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! While you're at it, care to weigh in on the other Chicago skyline below, also up for delisting? --Bridgecross 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Is this a joke? ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is clearly a satisfactory image for FP and I don't think it has any danger of being below current standards. While it does have flaws (mainly in sharpness and noise), they could easily be fixed by running some noise reduction and downsampling a bit and still be very high resolution. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Can't do better. --Arad 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept as featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airport traffic pattern

Reason

There is an SVG version of the image at Image:Airfield_traffic_pattern.svg which should be featured instead.

Nominator

Mahahahaneapneap

• Delist — Mahahahaneapneap 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with SVG version. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerospike XRS-2200 engine

Reason

Good heavens this image is filthy. You'd be hard pressed to find a single area of this image that's free of heavy grainyness, or for that matter an area that's even in focus!

Nominator

froth^{T C}

• Delist — froth^{T C} 09:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing that can't be fixed. Hi-res enough to be FP quality at half size, where the specks aren't visible. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well then it needs to be fixed and you should be voting to replace it with an edit, not voting for the original. --froth^{T C} 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep stunning picture; since this was probably shot on photographic film, the graininess and scratches aren't that unusual (especially if you look at it that close). -Wutschwlllm 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you see just how bad it is. This focus is just one random spot at full size --froth^{T C} 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep filtered but not downsampled version Changed my vote because of the edits -Wutschwlllm 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, very minor issues aren't enough to warrant delisting. Noclip 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delist I have to agree with the nom on this. The image looks very dirty, there are a lot of speckles (word?) and I see a large dirt smear on the photo. This evidence leads me to delist. — Arjun 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Grain and focus problems are not that bad, especially when downsampled to typical monitor resolutions. And no, we should not replace it with a downsampled version because we would be throwing away detail along with the noise. It could benefit from some light retouching on the scratches. —Dgies^t c 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very encyclopedic pic. It's grainy due to the super high res and no, it should not be downsized (per Dgies). Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Small specks are easily removed with a filter. This is a really minor issue. ed g2s • talk 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The filter eliminated most of the speckles but the image is still dirty. Except for the actual flame, everything is blurry, badly oversampled, or smeared (dirty lens?). Check out focus 2. --froth^{T C} 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - striking and interesting. --Deglr6328 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep edit 2 - seems just fine now. Debivort 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but replace with edited and downsampled version. I'm not quite convinced that any meaningful detail is lost in this case after downsampling from 3000x2361 to 1500x1181 pixels as the original is so grainy and soft. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with user Dgies's comments. --Aqua 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/ Downsampled version This picture is too interesting to delete. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is obviously going to be replaced with one of the edits, but I need some more opinions on whether to go with the downsampled one or the filtered one. Could anyone who hasn't commented here please do so? Raven4x4x 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Downsampled then --froth^T 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep larger edit. Per Dgies. --Tewy 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep downsampled as above. Debivort 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep downsampled per everyone. Noclip 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep downsampled Circeus 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep orignal, delete downsampled. Downsampling is simply destroying information, ... the images are already used downsampled in our article... No need for an extra pass of processing. --Gmaxwell 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept downsampled. Trebor 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Moore Reclining Figure 1951

Reason

There is noting interesting about the the picture.

Nominator

Bewareofdog

• Delist — Bewareofdog 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I disagre, I find it beautiful, like the color, size, lighting and everything else about it. Arjun 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. What the heck? How did this thing get featured? --froth^T 05:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep high enc value, sharp, perfect composition, good lighting, Great Image. Keep. -Fcb981 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep striking image with little to technically object to. Illustrates its articles well. Debivort 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Good image quality, excellent composition - Alvesgaspar 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I agree with Bewareofdog. I don't have a clue how it got featured? Daniel10 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it was promoted in September 2004. Here is a link to the nomination discussion. Keep in mind standards were very different then. Raven4x4x 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Striking, good enc value, good composition, pretty good image quality. Not liking the art is a pretty poor reason to delist. —Dgies^t c 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh wow, I had no idea that angela used to admin this project --froth^T 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Huh? —Dgies^t c 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Look around this page, angela promoted several FPs --froth^T 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 'noting interesting' is not a good enough reason to delist. I don't think blue jays are interesting, but they can still make FPs. --Bridgecross 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bridgecross Joe D 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Great portrait of a great sculpture. howcheng {chat} 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Interest is in the eye of the beholder, as with much art. --Bob 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yarra Panorama

Reason

Can you see those shadows under the bridge? I love this image but those are major technical flaws.

Nominator

Arad

• Delist or Replace with Diliff edit — Arad 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do see the shadows and also the blurred people on the bridge but I think the merits of the shot outweigh the flaws. The control of exposure is great, as is the subject and composition. I'd like to see this one stay -Fcb981 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg, also a featured picture, is very similar to this one. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Technical flaws this severe are unacceptable. I wouldn't have approved this anyway even without the flaws --froth^T 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant delist. Composition is awesome but blurry people, focus and compression problems are too much to overlook. —Dgies^t c 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's improved somewhat, but the blurred people still bug me. Changing to no vote. —Dgies^t c 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I love it when people make blatantly incorrect assumptions. Why do you think those shadows are faults? They are not. That is how it looked. There are numerous downlights on the arch of the bridge. The arch stretches diagonally across the bridge, meaning that their position varies and creates a number of independent shadows as the light passes by the bridge rails. That is what has caused the 'major technical flaws'. I don't mean to be blunt here but why don't you ask the original photographer about them before making assumptions? Its one of my earlier panoramas and I will happily admit is in't among my best, but I don't see any major compression or focus problems. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Compression problems are noticeable in the haze near the lights on the distant bridge, and on the narrow spire on the right bank. What I was calling focus problems (in the trees) are on second thought probably related to wind movement and exposure length. Really both of these are fairly minor and my biggest problem is the smeared people on the bridge. —Dgies^t c 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I see some artifacts in the sky but I think they're quite minor but possibly made worse by some posterization which I could likely fix with a reprocess from RAW and re-stitch. As for the people, I don't really see them as a significant problem since they're incidental to the scene, but thats just how I see it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You know that I admire your works. I was sure enough that you'll check this page and comment on the delisting as you did. Even if those are not technical, they are weird, unusual shadows on water which are almost 3D for some reason. Even the water changes the color from brown to black. Anyway, i don't think this is FP with those unusual shadows. But If you can make the compression problem better, then why not? Maybe you can also remove those shadows, even if they are natural? --Arad 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I disagree with removing things from photos in principle though. The shadows are real and are part of the reality of the scene. As always, FP is a subjective thing but I can't see how 'strange' (they're perfectly normal if you consider the physics) shadows on the water should affect it. Obviously nobody even noticed them during the original nomination and it seemed that most people were voting to delist based on the incorrect notion that they were technical flaws in the stitching or something. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, you could tell the same to those people in commons, when everyone were opposing because of those shadows, which means if it was nominated today, it wouldn't make it. --Arad 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I did tell them at the time of the nomination on commons! I quote: "It is a reflection of numerous lights from behind the bridge through the geometric shapes of the bridge supports. Thats why there is overlap of shapes in the reflections. Definitely not an optical artifact of the lens". Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, the shadows looked natural enough when I first glanced at it but I was willing to take the noms word that they were flaws. as I said before the composition, control of exposure etc. out weighs the blurred people on the bridge. also the second edit exaserbates the artifacts. nuke it.-Fcb981 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As explained, the "shadows" are not a technical flaw. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace with edit 1. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but I propose that Edit 1 replace the FP as I feel it is an improvement in artifacts (or lack thereof), sharpness, perspective correction and contrast. I put a bit more effort into this attempt than last time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep but replace …with edit Fir0002 (third version from top). Very impressive picture. Made me click on it for a larger view and spend some time studying it. P.S. I like the original better only because it's easier to see the cloud detail on my LCD monitor. I have a gamma-adjusted monitor and have observed that it shows shadow detail better than many barbarian-adjusted monitors that I happen upon. Many LCD monitors make shadow detail look very dark so the clouds in edit #2 will probably still be visible. On my monitor, edit #2 looks wonderful. If there is poor support for the Fir0002 version, then any of these is fine with me; just go with the consensus here. Greg L 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Greg L 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• change to edit Fcb981. yes it is my own edit but I think it does a good jod of killing the distracting artifacts in the sky. there is bound to be a little loss of detail on the very tops of the buildings that extend into the sky because I did a color select then feathered it 15px before doing a 7px median. -Fcb981 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know exactly what technique you used on your edit but it has messed up the bright highlights in the sky and the water. Switch between both images and you will see obvious manipulation of them. For example, the spire on the right hand size is very dull at the top. There are similar changes all over the image. Do you really think there ARE artifacts in the sky? Could you be more specific? I don't really see them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Square reigons of pixles in the low light gradieants in the sky... maybe my lcd display creats them but I havent experienced them mostly, they become very apperant in Fir0002's edit. I'm sure you can see them there. there is also noiese in the clouds on that Edit. Although, clearly if the noise isn't visible to two other people it's more likely me than the picture. and yes there is some change to the skyline but if I had run a median or despeckle on the entire image you would have lost loads of sharpness. It's a nice picture in any event -Fcb981 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It sounds like your LCD screen's gamma might be slightly off. However, I do believe that you're right about it being there even though its essentially not visible to me. That sort of thing (compression artifacts in dark areas) is actually often very difficult to avoid.. I saved it at a high quality/low compression setting in Photoshop so artifacts were minimised but JPEG compression loves to turn what it considers dark detail-less areas into squares. Short of bumping quality levels as high as they can go (and tripling file size), such things are almost impossible to avoid with lossy file formats (although I'm sure if a new lossy standard were to be developed and popularised today, quality would be far better). You could introduce luminance noise into the sky to force the JPEG algorithm to save all detail and not try to cut corners, but then you'd be left with... *drum roll* luminance noise! Working with lossless formats is the only way to avoid it really and obviously that is impractical for the web. My take on it is this: yes it exists; no it isn't that important. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've just looked at Fir's edit and the artifacts are clearly visible in that version. That's because they're present (but unavoidable at reasonable file sizes and nigh-invisible) in the original JPEG and exacerbated by the processing that Fir's applied. I often find that with LCD screens (I regularly use three different ones), even if they're properly calibrated you can often see flaws in images which aren't visible on a CRT, due to the change in brightness/contrast with viewing angle. That can sometimes be handy when you're trying to make sure that an edit hasn't, for example, introduced clipping in dark or bright areas. More often, though, I find that using an LCD makes very minor quality issues seem distracting. If we want high-resolution images that remain accessible to people using slower internet connections, we sadly have to accept a (small) degree of lossy compression. --YFB ¿ 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Replace with Diliff's Edit 1 - I find it mildly ridiculous that an image of this standard is even being considered for delisting, given some of the other images people have voted Keep for recently. Diliff's explanation makes sense and the shadows are only distracting if you're looking for them; removing them to suit the tastes of the ill-informed would be A Bad Thing. I don't see artifacts on my (properly calibrated) monitor and Fcb981's edit has introduced unsightly effects along the skyline. --YFB ¿ 12:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with Diliff's Edit 1. strong ditto YFB. --Dschwen(A) 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replace with Diliff's Edit 1 or my edit per above --Fir0002 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment At least I got what I wanted, an improved version. --Arad 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with Diliff's edit. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hansom Cab

Reason

Basically I think that the image is to small, would not pass today if it were to go through the process. // Arjun 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Arjun

• Delist — Arjun 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Yep, too small for a photo --froth^T 05:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Size -Fcb981 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This image was nominated for delisting in October at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hansom Cab delist. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Not because it's small, but it's definitely not FP even if it was huge. Nothing amazing or special. --Arad 13:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per Arad. --Bridgecross 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per last time. It's charming and well-illustrates its subject. Size alone is not enough to delist. howcheng {chat} 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If size alone is enough for an image to not be a featured picture, why is it not enough for it to be delisted? --71.117.46.14 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Howcheng --Fir0002 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Idem - Alvesgaspar 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist --gren グレン 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Idem -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is a great photo and contributes a lot to the article. - Bevo 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture (no consensus). --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First flight, 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10:35 a.m.; Kitty Hawk, North Carolina

Reason

It's a marvelous photograph, but it may not be public domain. The Library of Congress owns the negative but is not the author and thus not the copyright-holder (there's been some confusion about this in the past). The photographer, John T. Daniels, died in 1947 as far as I can tell. So it won't be {{PD-old-70}} until 2018. If it was published before 1922, it's {{PD-US}}, but I haven't been able to determine the date of first publication--taking a photograph is not publication. Chick Bowen 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Chick Bowen

• Confirm copyright (I would like for this to be kept an FP, but only if we can be certain it's free). — Chick Bowen 23:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment From the source: "There are no known restrictions on the photographs taken by the Wright Brothers. Privacy and publicity rights may apply." HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This photograph was donated to the LOC along with the Wright brothers' personal collection. But it was not taken by the Wright brothers; it was taken by Mr. Daniels. Chick Bowen 23:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It says "Attributed to Wilbur and/or Orville Wright.", it could be Mr. Daniels was in their employ at the time. It also says "Orville Wright preset the camera and had John T. Daniels squeeze the rubber bulb, tripping the shutter.", it seems Mr. Daniels was an assistant. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I trust that the LOC isn't going to miss something as obvious as 70 years pma. If Daniels was an assistant, then it's likely a work-for-hire and he wouldn't own the copyright. I don't see why we can't trust the "No known restrictions" bit. howcheng {chat} 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • What tag should we put on it in that case? The current one there is deprecated. Perhaps {{pd-because}}, with an explanation? Chick Bowen 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I've done that before: {{PD-because|the Library of Congress says it is.}} howcheng {chat} 07:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, if someone else could put a statement together I'd appreciate that. I'm still not fully comfortable with declaring it to be public domain, when the reality is only that no rights-holder has placed restrictions on use. Chick Bowen 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Well said Howcheng. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The LoC is our reliable source on intellectual property. Speculation doesn't trump their assessment. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If LoC says it's free, let's leave it at that. --Janke | Talk 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 08:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Vortex Study at Wallops Flight Facility

Reason

I believe that the image's quality is too low for an FA, it's FAC (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wingtip vortex) I feel didn't have that much support either.

Nominator

_→AzaToth

• Delist — _→AzaToth 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Very interesting image, but the graininess is unacceptable --froth^T 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep unless alternative can be found. It's a stunning image! Yes, it's grainy in full size, but that full size is almost 3000 px! Downsample and you have much less grain... --Janke | Talk 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  If you check the 800x600 version of the image, it's still really grainy. _→AzaToth 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep unless alternative can be found. Amazing image. —Pengo 14:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Featured picture critera specify:

  A featured picture:

  1. Is of high quality. It is sharp and of pleasing colour balance, contrast and brightness, free of compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files), burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess"), and other distracting factors.
     • Typically, the only exception to this rule is in the case of one-of-a-kind historical images. If it can reasonably be considered impossible to find a higher-quality image of a given subject, low quality may sometimes be allowed. For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. NASA has a surplus collection of high-quality images, so a poor picture of the moon landing would not be accepted given that many others are available.

• Keep High enc value. --Arad 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • question is "high enc value" a reason to ignore §1 of the featured picture criteria? _→AzaToth 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's all subjective. Find a better quality, free license image of a vortex like this, and we can have that as a FP, while this is delisted. Simple as that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you have mistaken what a FP is, a vortex is not a "one-of-a-kind historical image", thus it shouldn't be able to except §1 in the criteria. _→AzaToth 10:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think most people don't understand the FP criteria. It's a guideline. It's there to guide you what we expect from FPs. It's not Wikipedia's absolute rule. There is always exeptions to it. So as stated above it's subjective. Get a btter image and we gladly delist this one. This is IMHO --Arad 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. The criteria themselves say that encyclopedic value is more important than artistic value. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Tomer T 11:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - wonderful illustration of the subject. Complaining about graininess in this image is like complaining about seeing the brush strokes in a Monet. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Edit? I don't have much problem with the grain, but the turquoise background is garish and the picture needs to be cropped at the bottom. I might give it a shot later. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I added my version. I'm neutral on this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -Nelro

Kept MER-C 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Buffalo Gold Coin

Reason

Per this delist, this current nomination and two former failed nominations (this one and this one) it features the same cameo effect as the 4 other coins, abeit with heavy editing by other wikipedia editors. If we're gonna discuss more about this type of shop, we should also include this one to the table as well.

Nominator

293.xx.xxx.xx

• Delist — 293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also believe theirs one more shopped US Mint coin that also got FP status, but I can't find it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Fir0002, plus it's huge. --Tewy 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify. If there's a version of the same resolution but without the cameo effect, I recommend that to be nominated for FP. But in the meantime there seems no reason to delist this image. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Cameo and unnecessarily huge resolution. Not only is it oversampled to that resolution but I have a very hard time viewing it at full size- since it's just a coin there are very large fields of solid color --froth^{T C} 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that the maximum size (without compromising quality) is generally preferred (#5). Are you saying that the original was smaller? From what I can tell from the source, this was the original size. --Tewy 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like there's less image data than pixels.. I don't know how that happened though. Looking around the image intuition tells me I see maybe 1.1 pixel sized groups of samples --froth^{T C} 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Cameo proofs and US Mint photography style sometimes look tacky, but not in this case. Also, the cameo style is problematic with coins that are in regular circulation because most people see them in a scuffed, non-cameo form, while a bullion coin like this is meant to be sold to collectors and most specimens should look this shiny. —Dgies^t c 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And I say again elsewhere: Can you guarantee 100% that if I bought said coin, it'll look like that? I have seen examples of said coin in hand, and it DOESN'T look like the US Mint Picture.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Methinks the licence tag on all US Mint coins is wrong: [2]. This seems to be a "covered coin"", but the stament that the coin is ineligible for copyright is contradicted by the link. In particular the Sacagawea Golden Dollar has a copyright notice embedded in the picture. ~ trialsanderrors 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The buffalo nickel seems to be covered by those additional terms. Anyway the only applicable term seems to be the last one and wikipedia does that very well: When the obverse and/or reverse design of any Covered Coin obtained from any United States Mint source is reproduced for publication, credit should be given as follows: "United States Mint image." The credit should be clearly legible and placed next to the coin design reproduction. The following may be used instead if a credit page is provided: "United States coin image [or images] from the United States Mint." --froth^{T C} 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So in other words this one is a copyvio since it's not a "Covered Coin"? → "This policy does not cover use of the design of any coin not specifically defined above as a Covered Coin. For example, it does not cover the Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea." In any case, the licence tag should be corrected since it's clearly not true that US coins are "ineligible for copyright" and in the public domain. Currency in my understanding is always copyrighted by the Central Bank. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Re-read your quote: "This policy doesn't cover use of non-covered coins. For example it doesn't cover use of the golden dollar." Therefore the golden dollar isn't covered by the terms.. but even if it was wikipedia satisfies the terms. --froth^{T C} 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Covered Coins ← OK to reproduce with attribution, Non-covered Coins ← Not ok to reproduce, even with attribution. "The United States Mint will not object to use of the obverse or reverse design of (... long list ...) (each, a "Covered Coin" and collectively, "Covered Coins")" This one does not seem to be among the listed Covered Coins (since it's not the Buffalo Nickel) and so the US Mint objects and "does not grant any waiver, release, or written permission of the Director under 18 U.S.C. § 709i or 31 U.S.C. § 333". ~ trialsanderrors 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That specific policy doesn't grant any release to non covered coins, but it doesn't mean that release hasn't been granted elsewhere. Presumably since that branch of the mint doesn't have jurisdiction over all coins. --froth^{T C} 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That argument sounds a bit, uh, manufactured, especially since the headline of the webpage is "United States Mint Circulating Coin Design Use Policy". ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Hm.. well try this argument: The policy releases the specifically mentioned coins under certain conditions that make them ineligable for Public Domain. The policy also makes it clear that these conditions do not extend in any way to coins not mentioned (golden dollar for example). Since those other coins have no specific terms, and they're the work of the US Government, they're automatically released into the public domain. --froth^{T C} 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
              • "You should not assume anything on this site is necessarily in the public domain." ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
                • However works of the US govenment aren't eligible for copyright protection.. they're automatically released into the public domain unless withheld by additional conditions. see [3] [4] [5] --froth^{T C} 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • $105, "but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise" applies here, as clearly stated on the US Mint website. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • But the copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, etc is only the Covered coins. --froth^{T C} 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • But you might have a good point about all US currency not being public domain since some of it seems to be released under conditions (albiet conditions that WP satisfies) --froth^{T C} 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe it should be marked with Template:Money? --froth^{T C} 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Whoa, whoa, since when did this turn into a debate on Wikipedia policy? --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can't feature fair use pictures. It's in the FP criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that the designer and engraver credit listed is the designer of the 1913 Buffalo nickel, which is a "Covered coin". I think the only way this would not be PD is if there was copyright held by the photographer. Still it would be good to know for sure. —Dgies^t c 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a phone number on the webpage. I thought I saw an email address somewhere, but I can't find it anymore. ~ trialsanderrors 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It's licensing@usmint.treas.gov but I'd rather not be the one to ask permission. In any case, with "Federal Fridays" I doubt we'll get an answer before Monday. —Dgies^t c 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - cameo destroys enc, and should disqualify images in my opinion. Debivort 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a bullion coin for collectors. A large fraction of them are cameo. —Dgies^t c 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I may have used the term incorrectly. I meant to refer to the photoshopped background, and thought we have been using the term "cameo" to refer to that. In either case, I vote delist because of obvious photoshoppery in the background. Debivort 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think that it is just fine with the cameo in this case. It is an excellent picture of a collecter Buffalo Gold Coin. Why1991 01:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as this seems to just be up for delisting to bolster an FPC argument and to prove a point, this is hardly the place for either... the better place to mention this if you want to use this as an example why these shouldn't be listed would be just to mention it in the current noms for coins. Cat-five - talk 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not list it? We're questioning the validity of another shopped US coin, which is completely unnatural in apperance and doesn't have any equilvelent counterpart in real life. This coin also has the same questioned criteria as well. Which might be a moot point, because of the pending copyright problem above. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin images are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kept Raven4x4x 05:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

After I closed this User:293.xx.xxx.xx pointed out to me that the copyright status of this picture hasn't been resolved yet. I'm putting this here in 'suspended nominations' until it can be sorted out fully. Raven4x4x 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This source gives the date of original engraving as 1913, which would put it into the PD as expired copyright, but I would think it's the burden of the original uploader to confirm this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Then again, the design was "refreshed" for the $50 denomination, so that kinda leaves a grey area of sorts. The design might be PD, but the additions of the legends and denominations might lend the coin to be "copyright" by the US Mint. Just want to be 100% sure it's legit.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then delist pending confirmation that the coin is available under a free licence. Contact info is above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, because by keeping it here, we can get a clear understanding if it violates or fulfills Criteria #4. The FP tag hasn't been changed on the image page yet, and nobody has given a clear opinion on whats what. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought on the refreshing of the design: in german copyright law there is the concept of Schoepfungshoehe which describes the amount of creative work. Trivial additions such as legendtext, contrast enhancement or putting numbers on the engraving would most likely not lead to sustainable copyright claims under german law. Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. --Dschwen(A) 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comon sense suggest it is likely to be the same for US law. You're joking right? :p --froth^T 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Then so must be Cornell Lawschool [6]:

Any copyrighted expression must be “original.” Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). Although the amount of creative input by the author required to meet the originality standard is low, it is not negligible. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 362. There must be something more than a “merely trivial” variation, something recognizably the artist’s own. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2000). The originality requirement mandates that objective “facts” and ideas are not copyrightable. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 99 (1879); Feist, 499 U.S. at 347; Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 1970). Similarly, expressions that are standard, stock, or common to a particular subject matter or medium are not protectable under copyright law. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). --Dschwen 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Two more things (always considering IANAL):

• In 1991 in the case of Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 US 340) the U.S. Supreme Court basically rejected the Sweat of brow doctrine. I.e. just because something took a lot of work to create does not justify a copyright claim.
• Facts are not copyrightable. Ok I mentioned this before, but the denomination of the coin: fact, the year it was issued: fact, the issuer: fact. The arrangement of the letters: trivial.

IMHO this case can be closed. And there wasn't any helpful input for one and a half months. It all boils down to the original artwork, which has already determined to be free. --Dschwen 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded this file to Commons and nominated it for deletion there per Cool Cat's advice on IRC. The Commons deletion discussion should be able to determine the copyright status of this image. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:American_buffalo_proof_vertical_edit.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update I've been in contact with the U.S. Mint and have a phone call scheduled for tomorrow. So I hope we'll get some more info then, although I doubt it will be a decisive Yes or No. ~ trialsanderrors 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How did it go? Tomorrow was two days ago. I still stand by my argument (which nobody bothered to comment on :-( ) that we should be fine keeping this pic. --Dschwen 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The phone call never came. I'll wait until tomorrow night and if nothing happens I'll summarize the e-mail exchange on the Commons page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Info and my interpretation posted. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, see above. --Dschwen 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture (finally). --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pahoeoe fountain

Reason

Looks like a scan of a print or a negative, but there is a lot of dirt on it, especially to the immediate right of the spouting lava. Granted, some of it might be lava fragments, but I think these are scanning artifacts.

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Delist — howcheng {chat} 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps the dirt can be edited out? (Strange how nobody edits the delistees…)--HereToHelp 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• At the original nomination, the pic was heavily edited in order to arrive at the current version. I vote Keep since it's a unique pic and there are not that many other volcano pics of similar quality. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Very good image and VERY very hard to catch. It has a free licence too. Who's going to risk to take such a photo? Plus the quality is OK (I agree it might not be FP quality but quality is not the only criteria here). And to HereToHelp, I always try to see if I can help "delistees" and edit them but mostly, the "delistess" are far too small or very bad quality. In this case, it doesn't even need an edit. --Arad 20:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Arad. I think the dirt is likely to be spashes — Jack · talk · 16:28, Saturday, 31 March 2007
• Keep. Per the above. It is a very interesting and hard to come by image. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept MER-C 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted

[edit] Korea gyeongbokgung

I really like this image, but once again it's one where the resolution isn't high enough for a featured picture.

• Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Under size requirements. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist unless the photographer has a higher resolution version he/she wants to share. This one is tiny. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist: Under size requirements. —sd31415 (sign here) 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist This would be a good picture to keep but as stated above it does not fit the required size requirements. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Great shot, bad size. --froth^{T C} 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Regretfully too as the shot is beautiful. — Arjun 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've always been a strong believer in the concept that size alone is not sufficient enough a criterion to delist. howcheng {chat} 08:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Regretful delist' If it doesn't meet the size requirements, then it must go. It is a pity, as the shot is quite beautiful. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-cemetry-circle

Not particularly special, nothing that stands out to me, plus (again, sorry guys) not a good enough resolution.

• Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Wow, so many under-sized FPs! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. —sd31415 (sign here) 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Shall we contact the creater/uploaders of the picture to tell them to make them bigger? How did these even get on the list when they did not fit the requirements in the first place? --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• The requirements weren't as strict before. Have a look at the other language Wikipedias; their pictures are often terrible! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Tons of junk got through before the rules were enforced. This is a prime example. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pitstone-windmill

Another picture that is pretty good, but is let down by poor resolution. This shouldn't be too hard to replace with a better-quality picture.

• Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Not large enough. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Not bad but not really exceptional either. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per poor resolution. —sd31415 (sign here) 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Not clear enough and it does not fit the size requirements. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist If it is not big enough, it must go. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champs elysees

Came across this while looking through the featured pictures and thought, even as a thumbnail, it didn't stand out as anything special. But the main problem has to be the resolution; surely a better quality picture can be taken of such a popular location.

• Nominate and delist. Trebor 14:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist unless the photographer has a higher resolution version he wants to share. Also, the horizon is tilted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Doesn't meet criteria. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Once again this would be an awesome picture to keep but as all the pictures above it is not clear enough or big enough. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist The picture could be much better. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per above. —sd31415 (sign here) 11:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notre Dame Basillica

Temporarily suspended until copyright status is clarified Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No this isn't a joke delist, although at first glance it may seem so. This image is obviously technically and aesthetically extremely good. But I'm a little unsure as to the validity of the licensing, as Diliff apparently signed a waiver saying it wasn't going to be used for any commercial purpose (see here). Now my understanding of the licenses it is released under, is that commercial use is allowed - a bit of a delimma. I brought it up on Diliff's talk page a little while ago (here - response is here) however not that much as you can see came out of it so I thought I'd better bring it for general discussion. It'd be nice, as Dschwen suggested, to just let sleeping dogs lie but I don't think we can do that on Wikipedia for a Featured Picture. Anyway I hope I don't offend anyway, I just thought it needed to be brought up.

• Nominate I don't think I'll vote until more input on the legal aspect is given from other voters. --Fir0002 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have emailed them the following:

From: xxx@xxx
05/12/2006 11:23        
To: info@basiliquenddm.org
Subject: Restrictions on photography inside the Basillica


To whom it may concern,

I am an amateur photographer who visited the Basillica in January 2006. I asked to take 
photos with a tripod and was requested to sign a document that I believe prohibited me 
from commercial use of the resulting photos. I had and have no intentions of selling the 
photo, however, I was very pleased with the result of the photo and uploaded it to 
Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. I uploaded it under a licence that states it is
my own personal work but it, or derivatives of it, can be used for any purpose. Therefore,
it has been pointed out that I may have broken the terms of the document that I signed. 
Could you please confirm exactly what restrictions there are on my photograph and whether
you believe it should be removed from Wikipedia?

For the record, the article on the Basillica is here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica

The photograph in question is here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Notre-Dame_de_Montr%C3%A9al_Basilica_Jan_2006.jpg

Wikipedia is commited to ensuring that no laws and will be forced to remove the image if 
it is determined that its use is in breach of the document I signed. That would be a 
shame, but I understand your need to control commercial photography inside the Basillica.

Regards,
David

We'll see what their response is, if anything. The official site is a little amateur. The english link doesn't work at all so I stumbled my way to the contact page with my limited knowledge of French. Contactez-nous apparently! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work Dillif. Agree that the site is pretty ordinary, but look how nice and light the interior photos are! ;-) --Fir0002 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that.. :-) Anyone can make it appear lighter than it actually was. Exposure is an easy thing to manipulate, but that doesn't make it more accurate. Lets face it, its probably ordinary photography to accompany an ordinary site. Hard to tell from the low resolution snippets though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Until we get an answer back regarding the copyright status, I think it would be best to suspend this delisting. I'm worried this might take a while. Raven4x4x 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have re-sent the request for information in French as per Booksworm's translation. I did not hear back from them at all in response to my English email. I suspect that I will not hear back in French either, but I will wait and see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• I just gave them a call. In a nutshell, you are free to take any photos with no licensing restrictions, UNLESS you use a tripod. In that case, you must sign a waiver declaring that the photo will not be used for commercial purposes. So, as much as it pains me, this photo has to be taken off Wikipedia. However, please try your luck at convincing them to allow this one photo to get an unrestricted license. This is too good a photo to delete. 67.71.77.16 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Oops, wasn't logged in. That was me. ♠ SG →Talk 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• If the photographer agreed to release it into the public domain, wouldn't that count as non-commercial? --Dgies 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• It would, except that the photographer signed a waiver that essentially prevents them from doing so. Unless specific permission is granted for the release of the image under a free license, it's only usable for non-commercial purposes. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• You might be right but that sounds like a logical contradiction: "Public domain would be non-commercial and therefore OK, but they can't release it as public domain because they must make non-commercial use only" —Dgies^t c 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the update SG. Did you ask them why they aren't checking their email? ;-) I assumed that would be the party line. Its rather difficult to get them to allow this photo an unrestricted licence by phone. It would really have to be verifiable in some way. If they won't respond to my email, I don't know how else to get it. I suppose I could just claim I mistakenly admitted using a tripod and really it was shot hand-held. ;-) No wait, I was under duress! I'm kidding by the way. They have my signature on the waiver under lock and key in a vault somewhere no doubt. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Depending on how accessible the subject is to you...could you create another picture of this quality without a tripod? (I guess they figured that really good photographs like this require tripods).--HereToHelp 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you sponsor Diliff to go to France Canada again I think he will happily shoot another one. :-p But if you have read the image description page, it said This image was taken with a Canon 5D and 85mm f/1.8 lens @ f/13 for depth of field. Each exposure was 15 seconds.. Now I doubt anyone can hand held a camera 15 seconds without motion, so it will be quite impossible to recreate this image without tripod. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Not one of this quality, anyway...it's a shame. Not only would we have to delist it, but delete it. I really hate copyright.--HereToHelp 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's time that we removed this image from wikipedia. We've certainly established that it's in copyright violation and it seems that we're waiting on approval to use it. Remove now, possibly approve and restore later, that's the way copyright works --froth^{T C} 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to get it straight, it is absolutely not a copyright violation! The copyright for the image is with the uploader. It is just(?) a licensing problem. Commons does not permit non-commercial licenses. The picture could be uploaded directly to en.WP, but still would have to be delisted from FP. --Dschwen 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The English Wikipedia does not permit the use of non-commercial-only image licesing either (see [7]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Too bad, its a great image. Quickly have to save a copy on my PC... --Dschwen 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it from most of the pages it's on. The rest are just old archives where a redlink won't really hurt. Anyone who's a commons admin can now delete the image itself. Raven4x4x 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, it has been done. Very unfortunate as it was a spectacular image --Fir0002 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• question they have just the restriction for tripods? then can't you create something list a quatropod, and use it instead? :) _→AzaToth 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BDSM collar back

Reason

I'm just not sure that if this image were nominated today, it'd make it through the FPC process and gain the star. Its resolution is substandard and its depth of field seems a bit too shallow (the right and top edges of the collar itself are blurry, to say nothing of the rest of the image). It might just be an error introduced by the scan. It works OK as an illustration of the subject, but I'm not sure it's of feature quality. Given the wide availability of the object depicted, it just seems to me that we could do better. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominator

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• PS. It may be worthwhile extending the deadline slightly on this image to give time for feedback on a new scan, if one is forthcoming. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist — GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — it's iconic, and the important parts are in focus. ('Course, I'm partial.) grendel|khan 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I don't suppose you happen to have a higher-resolution version available for upload? That'd at least rectify one of the problems. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it was scanned from a print; I think I may still have the print around, but I'd need to dig it up. I'm on vacation until January 2 or so; if I can find it, it'll be on the last day of voting. I suppose I can always resubmit it. grendel|khan 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delist — is below the required size (1000px), it's rather blurry. _→AzaToth 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist per all above. —sd31415 (sign here) 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per all above. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist. Also boring pic. --froth^{T C} 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist size requirements, and the important parts are not really in focus. They're just in better focus than the other parts. --Bridgecross 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• delist, tight focus is artsy but not clearly illustrative of the subject. I've had qualms about this one for a while but never got around to listing it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist does not meet the FP standards. For it is too small and way to blurry. — Arjun 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Per all above. Its too blurry. Daniel10 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Until better picture suitable replacement is found <---- That really says it all. Although I agree that this picture is technically flawed, the picture does have a good encyclopedic value. I propose that we keep it until a suitable replacement can be found (which shouldn't be too hard, actually). S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We're not deleting it. The picture will go on contributing whatever encyclopedic value it can just as it always has. We're just recognizing as you have that it's flawed and shouldn't be presented as our best work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist boring and definitely not one of WP's finest photos. Wikipediarules2221 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City Hall, London

Reason

Does not meet size requirements - It's only 450 x 600. Also, there are blown out highlights and the subject is cut off.

Nominator

Mahahahaneapneap

• Delist — Mahahahaneapneap 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist definitely way too small -Wutschwlllm 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Pity it doesn't meet the requirements.... it is a beautiful shot of a beautiful building. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist - yup, good call. Was featured when the requirements were a lot less strict. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist: Under size requirements. —sd31415 (sign here) 11:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Sad to see too since the image is very nice. — Arjun 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delist Well I guess we are on patrol for small pictures!! Looks like they had bad weather that night (or at least it was a little foggy).--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Because the author was not informed, the only reason is the size, otherwise a very good photo. I though we were over this, as there was another nomination, based only on size that failed. Until we don't get a response from the creator, we don't have to remove this image from FP statue. --Arad 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that as a matter of courtesy it would be nice if the nominator/creator were warned however most nominations go through delisting without notifying the person so it's not really needed though it would be nice. Cat-five - talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• To nominator: Please inform the author of the nomination and ask him, if possible, to provide a higher resolution.
• Delist on size and quality grounds, the size is way too low and the blown out lighting are an issue though I can live with the cutoff of part of the building. Cat-five - talk 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted - I asked the photographer, ChrisO, for a higher res version on the 4th of December but he hasn't replied yet. If he can provide a larger image it can always be nominated again. Raven4x4x 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glass ball

Reason

Not Wikipedia's best work. The image is of a low resolution (422x510 px) and has bad compression artifacts.

Nominator

KFP (talk | contribs)

• Delist — KFP (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Should be possible to replace with a better image of decorative glass. —Dgies^t c 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist this in now way meets the criterion for FP. — Arjun 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist --froth^{T C} 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, too small to be a featured picture, and doesn't have a notable feature to make the small size acceptable. --RandomOrca2 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. —sd31415 (sign here) 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Small picture patrol!!--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Small size should not be the sole reason for delisting a picture. NauticaShades 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Small size alone is more than enough to keep a candidate from reaching FP so why shouldn't it delist one? --froth^{T C} 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Because of the asymmetry in promoting vs delisting images - not meeting all current criteria is not sufficient for a delist. At least that's how I've interpreted the delist discussions for a while now. Debivort 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Cent

Reason

There was wide opposition to another coin because it featured the same cameo effect. I just wanted to revisit the issue to try to get more discussion on this.

Nominator

froth^{T C}

• Delist — froth^{T C} 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Emphatic delist - the photoshopping of this example is particularly blatant, and the "light side" of the background is almost white - even the shiniest pennies don't really look like that. Debivort 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Modern U.S. proof coins are often treated with chemicals to make certain parts of the design take on a frosted appearance, and the fields taking on a mirror finish. Several other methods have been used in the past to achieve this effect, including sand blasting the dies, and matte proofs. Also see cameo. You're simply stating that it was photoshopped as if that's without question a bad thing, however the whole purpose of this nom was to establish whether in fact it is a bad thing. --froth^{T C} 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what the first part of your comment has to do with mine. I am not objecting to the "frosted" parts - I'm objecting to the background that has been simply filled using the bucket tool in photoshop. Blatant photoshopping of an image like this is bad because it makes the coin look shinier than it is in real life. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're not very familiar with coins, are you? Search google images for words like deep OR ultra cameo proof. Simply stating that something is photoshopped doesn't make it true. It may be a drawing, though, but the effect that is shown is very real. Of course pennies in circulation will not exhibit this effect very well, because they are not the best of the best and/or have not had special chemical treatment. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-02 13:58Z
    • I may not be "very familiar with coins" but I am utterly familiar with the conversations we've had about these cameo images on the FPC pages before. Go ahead and look at your google image hits from deep cameo or whatever - in none of them will you see the even half light/half dark field with the cute little gradient separating the halves. This is fake - it is done habitually by the US Mint for their publicity shots. Look at the inset. The blue parts are absolute black - this pattern only results from filling with the paint bucket in Photoshop, and therefore reflects (har har) a decrease in the encyclopedicity of the image because it makes it look much shinier than if it had simply been photographed and left unmanipulated. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As an added note to the above two comments, proof coins frequently look like this, in real life and in coinage publications. The appearance of this particular penny is not rare and many coins issued proof look like this when photographed. Proof coins are struck multiple times to create deep relief between the features and the field of the coin, after they're struck they're thoroughly polished to create the shine exhibited. It doesn't really matter to me if the coin is delisted as a featured image, but opposers should consider the overall quality of the image rather than support delisting just because it "looks fake" Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've looked through the google image hits now, and in previous nominations. Please, if there are undoctored photos that have this half light/half dark field, show me a link! Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, just look at the edges of the 2002. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist No longer up to snuff. Comment I'm trying to look ahead to future PotD's, but this slipped through the cracks. Again, this link:[[Wikipedia:POTD row/{{#time:F j, Y|+7 days}}]] gives you the PotD seven days in advance. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I was actually considering nominating this image for delist. Per all above. — Arjun 21:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist, fake lighting that doesn't make sense. Noclip 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I've changed my lackadaisical "delist" to a comment for the objections offered above, but I stand by my call for the following reasons: 1. I am under the impression that this image was heavily photoshopped, which alone is a reason for delisting. Even unphotoshopped images that "look photoshopped" should not be featured. 2. In particular, the blurriness of the black-white transitions smack of manual blurring. 3. Not trusting my first instincts I went to the source of the image and downloaded both proof and uncirculated of the 2006 Benjamin Franklin "Founding Father" Silver Dollar and superimposed them in Photoshop (set the top image to 50% opacity and invert it). The rims of the coins are digitally identical and with some shifting and rotating I can find other elements that are digitally identical. So I conclude that both versions are digitally created from elements of the same original photgraph. 4. While it is possible that the coin was prepared mechanically and chemically to create the photo, it's questionable that this is still done today when a similar effect can be created in 30 minutes on a computer. And finally 5. Images of this type are – literally – a dime a dozen and a penny to the pound, so I don't think that even if it is an unphotoshopped original it can be considered among the best. ~ trialsanderrors 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm putting up that other penny for FP :) --froth^{T C} 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist with Severe Prejudice - In addition, I will put up the following image, which also was given FP status, also be immediately put up for immediate delisting procedures. It's the same with the other coins: photoshopped coins that don't show any natural minting processes.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delist Not a regular penny but a collecters one. We an excellent picture of a penny that is in the money circulation.--¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep There's no reason a new penny in the right light couldn't look as good as this. A photographer with talent will USE lighting to make something look better. The whole industry of product photography is based on making some toy or product look wonderful so that you will buy it. Most models and movie stars have the same done with publicity shots. -- Mactographer 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My Two Cents:--P.S. Photoshop is here to stay. It's gonna be used. It's a reality we all have to live with every day. We ain't going back to using buggy whips and horses. Same for the old photo methods.Mactographer 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please. Mines better:

This user likes to give his or her two cents.

--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ha. Very nice. Tho I like to make userbox pages so I don't have to keep all that wiki code handy. Mactographer 16:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The cameo effect looks great and I can't see how it lowers enc --Fir0002 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Fir; delisting these simply because of the cameo effect doesn't seem necessary. I will agree that an identical image without the cameo effect is more realistic, and therefore better, but I don't see why all these otherwise good images have to be delisted. --Tewy 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Cameo is not the problem per se, it's the manipulation done by the US mint on all these images. Debivort 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delisting paves the way for FPing a different penny without the cameo effect. Since Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln Penny 2 is the exact same image but without the cameo effect I don't understand why you wouldnt vote Delist on this one and Support on the other --froth^{T C} 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That one doesn't meet size requirements. --Tewy 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well then neither does this one.. they're the exact same image without the cameo --froth^{T C} 20:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • One cannot promote an image to featured status if it doesn't meet size requirements. But failing to meet current size requirements is not necessarily a reason to delist every featured picture that's below the limit. As I said below, if a nearly identical or better image of the coin without the cameo is promoted, I will vote delist on the current featured cameo coin. The current nomination for the non-cameo penny does not have a chance at becoming featured, so it will not replace this image, and I therefore see no reason to delist this otherwise exceptional image at this time. --Tewy 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Good point, however if FPs don't meet the current requirements they should be delisted --froth^{T C} 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My policy on these is that I support keeping the current FPs, unless a non-cameo version is promoted as a replacement. --Tewy 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the proof coin shows the motive best due to its clarity. It is free of any individual coin features, it is an archetype. That actually helps enc. If you want to show a real coin, use one from circulation, that has its merits too. --Dschwen 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So....anyone get info on if the coin image are Public Domain or ZOMG, WE'RE GONNA BE RAIDED BY TEH FEDERALI!!!! type of deal per the issue raised here?--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are two different cases. As for the lincon cent, I had the discussion with User:trialsanderrors here, and I think (as he didn't object anymore (maybe I just wore him down :-) )) that this particulat coin is in the PD. --Dschwen 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess I should have responded there. As of now all indicators are that the Lincoln cent is PD. ~ trialsanderrors 08:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per trialsanderrors and others above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackerel sky over Edmonton, Alberta

Reason

I really don't see anything special in this picture. Just look at the graininess. This completely destroys the image for me. And these sort of clouds aren't that rare either.

Nominator

Wutschwlllm

• Delist — Wutschwlllm 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - per above. Also poor focus on the buildings. This image has been nominated for delisting before, but still, standards change - Jack (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - The original delist nomination was largely for failing size standards, at which time the image was updated with this larger version. While I think this image has decent encyclopedic value in articles on cloud formations, the overall poor focus ruins it. Mackerel clouds are supposed to show sharper boundaries so they need to be in focus. —Dgies^t c 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist regretfully as it is a beautiful image. But the blurriness and just an overall bad image. — Arjun 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist yet another undeserving FP --froth^{T C} 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist The focus should be on the city and not on the clouds. Even if the focus was on the clouds they don't seem very attractive. Why1991 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sochi edited

Reason

A very beautiful image but in no way meets the size requirements, which is a very vital requirement when promoting images. And the detail that can be seen isn't very good. Looks grainy. — Arjun 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Arjun

• Delist — Arjun 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per size. It's pretty much required that vistas fit the size requirement, no exceptions here --froth^{T C} 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• That's a picture from the Prokudin-Gorskii collection, so there might be a larger tiff file available. Maybe I'll do some sifting later. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Here we go: Zakat solntsa v Gagrakh ~ trialsanderrors 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Follow-up: I did the cropping and rotating of the tiff version but it needs some serious manual clean-up, so I would like to hear whether size is the only problem here or whether it might be delisted on other grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors:Yeah probably, for some reason I think the image is a little blurry but we shall see. — Arjun 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep under the condition that it be made bigger otherwise Delist. Why1991 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist due to size, also seems somewhat blurry and out-of-focus. If a larger version will be uploaded I suggest creating a new nomination, but I doubt it will pass. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per size. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 13:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The blurriness, especially in the ocean, is a symptom of the way the photograph is made. Read the Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii article and see Image talk:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg for more information. howcheng {chat} 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As is mentioned at the original nomination, the image was made in 1915 so the historical value outweighs the size requirement in my opinion. Spebudmak 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Size is not a feature of the original image, but of the edited copy here. There is a much larger copy available at the LoC website (see link above) that requires editing. ~ trialsanderrors 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, the image should then be replaced with a higher resolution version. But there is no reason to delist this one while we are waiting. Spebudmak 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, this is an historical photograph, so why do any manual editing to the archival, source version, other than the rotation? The edges of the version at the link above are interesting to see, given the color process that was used. We promoted the new scan of in the same way.Spebudmak 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• delist keep - made in 1915. Debivort 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC) since it seems to illustrate Sochi rather than the photographic technique, the fact that it was taken in 1915 doesn't matter. Debivort 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist because of size. I doubt it can be made much better from the originals. Also there is not much historical value since the place looks probably the same now as it looked back in 1915, and we have better images from Prokudin-Gorskii. --Bernard 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have to say I'm pretty disappointed at how poor the quality of voting on FPC has become. I do hope the delisters have taken the time to find out that this is one of the earliest colour photographs ever taken (alternatively, this picture is really bad quality and ought to be delisted too). I should also point out that some blurring/colour registration problems are a necessary side effect of Prokudin-Gorskii's technique. As trialsanderrors points out, a larger size scan is available - I looked at tackling it myself a couple of years ago (after all I did find and clean up the featured pictures for Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange and Lewis Hine). In this case I doubt that you would end up with anything much better than we have got at the moment. It would probably be wiser to spend the time cleaning up one of Prokudin-Gorskii's other photographs (check the Commons link - there are plenty), or properly determining which of his images is actually the earliest available. -- Solipsist 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Prokudin-Gorskii, while certainly a pioneer, was hardly among the first to take color photographs. There is also a good handful of images that were professionally restored by the Library of Congress, so if we want to depict P-G images in an "idealized" state we should take those. This picture here I would describe as "approximated original" state, in that it probably comes close to showing how the image was seen by contemporaries. The version I created would be a representation in the "current" state, including all damages that occurred over time. There are good reasons to feature one of each type, and I'm inclined to say that this would be a good representation for current state. The restoration, while pretty well done, doesn't match the efforts of the LoC. ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, he wasn't the first, but he was pretty much the first to do colour photography to a standard that you would say "that's a realistic picture". With respect to the professionally restored versions, it is interesting that they concentrate on the Alim Khan photo. This would be my first choice to represent P-G, its long been a featured picture on Commons and largely the image that made me decide it wasn't worth devoting much effort to trying to improve the quality of this one. Mind you, it look like there is an effort underway on Commons to delete all P-G photos for copyright reasons - which is a good example of why it would be foolish to devote much effort to improving or changing any of these photos. -- Solipsist 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Certainly a pioneering effort, but I doubt that his first image is more encyclopedically notable than his best image. Thanks for the notifier about the P-G deletion discussion. I posted my comment there. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist for now, without prejudice against renomination. Size is a problem, restoration quality is a minor problem (meaning it's a careful but not featured quality restoration), subject matter is a problem. All of those problems can be overcome with some effort, and I believe the image can be FP quality encyclopedic for the nuanced color gradation. Also, the image should be put into context so that readers who click through recognize its historic value. The discussion above is indicative that in its current state the message doesn't come across, and it seems like nobody is willing to put the effort into bringing this image up to speed. Maybe if I get a chance I'll do it later. ~ trialsanderrors 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. The size is ok but this picture doesn't really tell me very much about the city of Sochi, only that it is located close to some large body of water. I would vote to keep this as a featured picture if it were used in an article related to the history of photography. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. It may be somewhat historic but there are better historic photos by the very same photographer. It doesn't illustrate any article particularly well. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geisha

Reason

Too small and nothing special.

Nominator

Wutschwlllm

• Delist — Wutschwlllm 14:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I personally dislike this image as first of it is too small and secondly they aren't real geisha, which take encyclopedic value away from the image. — Arjun 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. Below size requirement. Witty lama 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Size should not be the only reason for delisting a picture. NauticaShades 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist another crappy pic, nowhere near FP material --froth^{T C} 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must agree with you but we don't need to be using improper language. :-) Why1991 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously froth, the picture is not "crappy" - it just may not be FP material. Please remember to be civil. Debivort 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh sorry --froth^{T C} 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Fails WP:WIAFP criteria 2, 3 (in my opinion), and 5 (considering the many other images on each page, it is not particularly important to either Kimono nor Geisha in a way the other included images are not). -- Kicking222 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Per all above. Why1991 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Per above. Debivort 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. I think it's still encyclopedic, showing what maiko (apprentice geisha) look like, but this is too much of a snapshot. howcheng {chat} 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - All said. --Arad 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A good example of Geisha.Bewareofdog 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago skyline at sunset

Reason

Superseded by Image:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg. Note this was nominated once for delisting: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline delist.

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Delist — howcheng {chat} 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. A good picture, but has been superseded and is no longer used in an article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. I forgot all about delisting this, after the other was promoted. --Tewy 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist I actually replaced this photo in every article it appeared in, with the new one. But then I felt it was not seemly to nominate it for removal myself. There is nothing wrong with having 2 FPs of the same subject (like hovery-flies or whatever they are) but the old one just doesn't meet our current standards. --Bridgecross 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although the quality of the other picture is far better, IMO this one has a better composition, specially the sky. --Arad 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We can perfectly put this back into, say, the Illinois article. No reason to have the same panorama in every Chicago-related article. The other one might win on technical merit, but this one wins on artistic impression. ~ trialsanderrors 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree we can use different skyline photos for various articles, and this is a nice photo. But if this were newly nominated today, folks would jump all over the out-of-focus buildings and dark lighting and other problems. --Bridgecross 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I'm certainly exhibiting status quo bias here. Also see the Long Beach image above. This one is leaps and bounds better than that one. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • For one reason, this is a PNG image, not a JPG and thus does not have any compression artifacts by definition. howcheng {chat} 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Not sure if that's not a jpg converted into a png. But you seem to consider compression artifacts a positive feature, judging from your responses. ~ trialsanderrors 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Not the case at all, but I think too much focus has been placed on JPG artifacts when they only noticeable at full size and then only at the edges of structures. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep. beautiful image. 68.61.233.160 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, but it's not in any articles anymore, which is a one of the requirements for being a featured picture. howcheng {chat} 21:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. If there is something better, it isn't "wikipedia's best work". say1988 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist. I think using alternate images on various pages is a great idea. Having several available shots for users to access on different pages adds meaningful content. However, this is a list for Featured Pictures and if images are grainy or if there are other better images available they should be used (e.g. several different pictures of the Lincoln penny)Buphoff 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock

Reason

I'm requesting to delist this image as a featured pictures mostly due to size and depth of field issues. It also seems somewhat grainy and blurred. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominator

Michaelas10 (Talk)

• Delist — Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, I think Image:Peacock front02 - melbourne zoo.jpg is superior to this image. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • so is the already existing commons FP Image:Pfau_imponierend.jpg nominated above. Hence delist. --Dschwen 14:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist and hope one of those other peacock FPCs succeed --froth^T 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, per others - Jack (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist on size. It's a shame, I like this pic. --Bridgecross 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - subject cut off on all sides. Pstuart84 Talk 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane by night

Reason

Not a bad picture but not exceptional either for such an often-photographed subject. I think we can do better.

Nominator

KFP (talk | contribs)

• Delist — KFP (talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Doesn't meet size requirements Joe D 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per above, not to mention the overexposure blowing the highlights. -Fcb981 23:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Nice pic, but a tad too small. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist Too small and not particularly pleasing to my eye. -Wutschwlllm 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist What is that thing behind the buildings.Bewareofdog 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A cloud? --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Godzilla? --froth^T 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man? --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delist - Tilted, too small, artifacts. —Dgies^t c 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, so this one is worse than this one how? ~ trialsanderrors 09:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying this is much worse than that one, but compare this image with this or some other images of the same subject at Flickr (example search). I think featured pictures should be exceptional in some way. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact it's not really different and I voted for delisting on the one you mentioned too and I can't understand why anyone would want to keep it, but that's democracy (sometimes it sucks, but hey...). -Wutschwlllm 13:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • nope --froth^T 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, in fact, this is very close to democracy......and the "consensus" is executed a bit arbitrarily too (but that's just my opinion). -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S.: The other one was kept because it "fits size requirements", which seems a bit arbitrary to me, especially since it looks like a panorama. -Wutschwlllm 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Tells you something about the arbitrariness of size requirements. They're both ~50,000 pixels. Oh, and Delist. ~ trialsanderrors 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That one wasn't about size. The oldest voters on FPC voted to keep it because it had a superior composition and atmosphere and the best of it's subject we have. --Arad 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro symbol

Reason

Replacement nomination for SVG version: Image:Euro Construction.svg. I'd just swap it out myself, but it isn't exactly the same, so I thought it better to bring it to the community.

Nominator

howcheng {chat}

• Replace — howcheng {chat} 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace PNG with SVG. A no-brainer, really... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace Great choice. ~ Arjun 16:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace - easier to read in the thumb. Only, can I suggest a few changes? Could the commas be changed to fullstops, could you reinstate the small embedded explainations, and could you please show the angle of the lines J, H and E? Jack · talk · 19:46, Tuesday, 6 February 2007
  • I didn't make it myself. Apparently, the commas are being used because it's the international system used in Europe (according to the creator, Commons:User:F l a n k e r). The text that was removed is now in the image description page. howcheng {chat} 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'll stick with my vote, suggestion-free - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007
• Replace but don't delete... that's what the "superceded" tag is for --froth^T 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely replace PNG with SVG. S.D. ¿п? § 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace I say that you should be bold and replace it yourself. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose replace unless it is changed back to American/UK/AU decimals (this is an English encyclopedia). I also think some of the explanations were nice in the PNG and the proportions of letter size to the symbol... gren グレン 00:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The file is from Wikimedia Commons, meaning it is used across all language versions. The image has no distinguishing features that make it specific to the English language, only those that use the Latin alphabet, as most European countries do - Jack · talk · 04:42, Wednesday, 14 February 2007

Replaced. Raven4x4x 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USB flash drive

Reason

I feel this is an informative image, but unattractive, and possibly outdated. Since everyone has at least one USB flash drive nowadays, I'm sure the image would be of no trouble to take again with much better conditions. With the border removed, the images are each - and combined - way less than 1000px. My main reasons for delisting are the ugly border and low resolution, and the possiblity that a (now obsolete) 64 Mbyte drive has slightly different internals to the modern standards.

Nominator

Jack

• Delist — Jack · talk · 19:39, Wednesday, 7 February 2007
• keep pending replacement, the resolution is sufficient, I can make out all the traces and the components. Resolution is a detail issue, but I'm not missing any details on this. The border should be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Created edit 1, which I believe is superior, but still far short of what I wanted. We need to photo to be retaken. The edit now takes it under the size requirements, as I said it would - Jack · talk · 16:55, Thursday, 8 February 2007
    • Woah, just realised mine has serious artifacts. Not sure why, but this means the original is actually way better than mine Jack · talk · 16:59, Thursday, 8 February 2007
• Delist All The background fusing of the edit looks bad and there are the artifacts. Mainly, for a subject such as this we really need the picture to be outstanding to make FP. This one is simpily unprofesional, tilted, and has a ugly (off pinkish white) background -Fcb981 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, purely because they look nothing like that anymore and we need a more accurate picture --froth^T 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - froth, that's actually not true - I have two (different) 3-month-old 1GB flash drives which are essentially identical internally to the one illustrated. --YFB ¿ 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak neutral Your points: 1) background/border: agree 2) resolution: mostly disagree (could be better but on a simple image like this you don't lose too much...) 3) Obsolete?: disagree, technologically it may be less useful but it is still just as representative as a newer one. gren グレン 01:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delist per all above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delist - It's encylopaedic and doesn't strike me as horribly bad, but it wouldn't be difficult to get a much better shot. I might take one myself if I can dig out my defunct 128MB version. --YFB ¿ 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Delisted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Halo

Reason

It's a nice photo, but I feel this picture doesn't meet the standards of today's featured pictures. It was promoted to FP in 2004, but probably would not make FP if nominated today.

Nominator

mw

• Delist — mw 08:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment - It's not terrible technically. It was shot at the South Pole, which earns it points for rarity of the shot, but the phenomenon it illustrates, light halos, seems to be fairly ubiquitous. I wish it illustrated something having to do with the south pole. Debivort 08:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I removed some of the dust and the black bar on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where are all the comments? This is supposed to close tomorrow, and we're not going to be able to make a decision unless we have some more input. Raven4x4x 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the decision would be to keep, right? The current state is preserved unless a consensus is reached to change it, just as a FPC isn't promoted unless it gets at least 4 votes. Debivort 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Replace with edited version. I agree with Debivort in that it's too bad it doesn't illustrate something South Pole-related, but it does show a halo pretty well and artistically, the angle works well for this shot. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace Per Howcheng --Fir0002 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Replace Btw, the sign on the bottom left says "Welcome to the South Pole", so there. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with edited version Raven4x4x 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)