Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2015

This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 01:19:11 (UTC)

Reason

These images were nominated in 2007 and I don't think they really represent our best material. I thank the nominator for putting the effort into creating them, but I do not think their quality warrants this tag. The images have an odd choice of font and coloured bars, have words that are oddly capitalised, do not use standard anatomical terms and do not use adjective consistently ("Humeral..." vs. "Radius head"). In addition these featured images should be in anatomical position which is an international standard for anatomical images. Lastly, the colour choice is odd, the lines sometimes intersect with text, and the body is oddly proportioned.

Articles this image appears in

File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human musculoskeletal system, Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Outline of human anatomy
File:Human arm bones diagram.svg: Acromion, Arm, Capitulum of the humerus, Clavicle, Coracoid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Greater tubercle, Humerus, Lesser tubercle, Radial fossa, Radial styloid process, Radius (bone), Ulna, Ulnar styloid process

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg (1st and 3rd image), Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg (2nd)

Nominator

Tom (LT) (talk)

• Delist — Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As above, and agree the body proportion does seem to be off, with arms that long, the skeleton should be taller. Mattximus (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for interest, I measured myself. I am 180 cm tall, and my arms, held in the position of the skeleton's, measured from the top of the clavicle to the tip of the middle finger, are 84 cm. This is a ratio of about 0.47, which is the same as that of the skeleton, to my accuracy of measurement. I feel that I have fairly normal body proportions. 217.44.130.43 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ratio is fairly close to the norm depending on your shoulder width. A nice anatomical quirk is that your arm span when arms extended finger tip to finger tip should be roughly your height. It's hard for me to figure out what doesn't look quite right with this skeleton, perhaps the shoulders are too wide compared to the rest of the body? The proportions are definatley off regardless, especially with the thickness of several bones. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep LadyofHats has produced some of our best freely licensed, de novo biomedical illustrations; I am confident that this is some of our best work, and that calling for its delisting is not productive. She's modified illustrations after consultation in the past, so this should be the first step. We don't have all that many professional illustrators contributing scientific illustrations to Wikipedia, so delist nominations such as this one should be well thought out. Lastly, as the IP contributor has suggested, the body proportions are likely within the range observed in healthy adults. Once we start to argue about averages, we run into the problem, "average of what?", and I don't think we want to go there. It may, however, help your understanding to note that this depicts a female, as stated in the file description. Samsara 17:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely something odd about this image, have a look on google and you will see that there is certainly some odd proportioning. For example, in this image, the femur is just as thick as the tibia. The cervical vertebrae are very thick. The triangle below the clavicle is very big. The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature. The lack of anatomical position means this image is in a naturally varus position. Although I admit I haven't seen many real human skeletons (most are models or drawings), this image doesn't reconcile with the corpus of images I see when researching in order to edit anatomy articles, and with these inconsistencies (whilst minor) I do not think this could be called our "featured" work, and I would not want readers seeing this image and feeling that it is other images which are inconsistent. I agree that addressing the issue a good place to start, Samsara, however I don't think the images as they stand represent best quality. LadyOfHats has made numerous, high quality images some of which I've personally used, and I'm very grateful. These are from 2007 and I hope she doesn't mind if they are delisted while the changes are made. How might we get in touch with Lady of Hats? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern about the proportions, the first thing to do would be to leave her messages through appropriate channels (there are at least three available) to ask what reference she used, and make an actual constructive suggestion, which I note this nomination doesn't do other than apparently saying that both sides of the body must be in anatomical position, which frankly I'm not sure I agree with. I think most viewers are aware that bodies are generally symmetrical, to an approximation. Delisting and renomming is, comparatively speaking, a waste of resources when a simple fix might be available, and tbh, changing the font is absolutely something you should be able to do yourself if there is an appropriate guideline that mandates certain choices. Just open the SVG in Inkscape and be done with it. It's a clear case of being bold and doesn't require a whole nomination process as a preamble. Samsara 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, WP has a process for delisting Featured Images. This image is not suitable as a "featured image". Hence I am using this process to get it delisted. Part of being on this site is expecting uploaded words to undergo scrutiny afrom others, which this picture is receiving. I am certainly not going to invest hours of my time learning these image editing and what note. I have "been bold" and cut straight to the point. As noted above and below it's clear other users share my concerns.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two do and two don't, at current count. I see that there are things that can be improved, but I still feel a delist nomination for something so salvageable is rather a waste of our resources. And I don't think changing a font in Inkscape would have taken you as long as typing out the above words. YMMV. Samsara 08:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are some issues I see with the anterior view image:
  • Cervical vertibrae are too wide.
  • Distal third of the clavicle is too thick.
  • Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
  • Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
  • Knees are in an abnormally vulgus position.
  • Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
  • Tibia is too thick.
  • Ankles are generally poorly represented.

I can't exactly pinpoint what it is that's wrong with the proportions, but the bones do seem unnaturally thick and the skeleton wide. I quite agree that the non-anatomical positioning makes the diagram seem rather unprofessional. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, support delisting as-is. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Query In your belated "notification" (titled "A brownie for you") you state that two images are nominated. Which two of these three were you intending to get discussed? Samsara 17:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delist only if there isn't any better picture of the human skeleton by the end of this voting period --DUCK404 a (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for delisting the images. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2015 at 18:26:53 (UTC)

• 
  Current FP
• 
  Proposed replacement

Reason

Poor colour balance; red in shadows, green in highlights, low resolution. Restored version has better colour balance and higher resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Adolescence Vietnam War 3rd Marine Division (United States) FNG syndrome (some currently have the unrestored NARA version)

Previous nomination/s

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marine da nang
• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Marine da nang.jpg

Nominator

(Hohum ^@)

• Delist & Replace — (Hohum ^@) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not an expert in photo images, but the second image is so dark that it is hard to see any details. Regarding the "green highlights" in the first picture, are there highlights in the face, neck, shirt and hands that are so green that they look unnatural? I don't think so. Everything has green in it maybe because the things really were green. Based on my unexpert eye, I prefer the first image. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the FP is sharper, and file size: is‎ 1,992 × 3,000 pixels, ‎versus 1,953 × 2,934 pixels ... Hafspajen (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck out my resolution comment, for some reason I was looking at the original upload size in the FPs history. (Hohum ^@) 01:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Open the images in two browser windows at full resolution, flip between them and tell me you think the current FP is sharper, has more detail, and the skin tone is correct. I can't see it. (Hohum ^@) 01:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think it is slightly just slightly sharper. Like when watching that chain around his neck. We will see what the others think. Hafspajen (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the current FP's been Denoised. The film grain's been removed, and probably some sharpening applied, this makes some bits look better, but at the cost of damage to other bits. For example, the hands are a lot better looking on the replacement. Also, brightness makes things sharper - it's like when my father takes photos on gloomy days, then changes them all until they look "bright and sunny" - it might look good, but whether it's a fair representation, that's another question. On the whole, I think the replacement's better, so Delist and replace, although I may fiddle and do an alt.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about the sizes? Hafspajen (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm, that was interesting, when I put up this gallery. Hohum is actually having a point. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and replace - Now that I see the images larger, I guess the colors in the replacement image are more natural. CorinneSD (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support delist & replace – More realistic. Sca (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The colors are better in the original. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Yann> — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 16:20:35 (UTC)

Reason

This image is just not up to the current FP standards. Marginal EV, the lighting is poor, he is squinting, his mouth is open, the microphone obscures part of his face, he is in an awkward pose, and I find the blurry American Flag in the background to be distracating.

Articles this image appears in

John Edwards, Political campaign

Previous nomination/s

Original nomination page

Nominator

Rreagan007 (talk)

• Delist — Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like this picture a lot. It has energy and immediacy. I don't agree with most of the objections. 217.44.208.182 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with the IP. This has really high EV (he's campaigning for president in this image, which has only happened twice). Campaigning means talking (not the easiest thing to photograph), and propaganda like the flag, and the jacket reading United Steelworkers at a United Steelworkers meeting (nice move). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delist Inclined to agree about the microphone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: There's the issue of the full sun in his face and his hands and drenching the flag. Distracting and difficult to look at...It is not as if the picture will be done away with; just not classed as a FP. Fylbecatulous talk 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks good. The colours are keeping it together. Also it is a good balance between left and right side, the movement of the hand creates a diagonal against the verticals. Hafspajen (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - great candid. Captures the moment. It's good to see photographs that capture the passion of real people doing real things. --Atsme☯^Consult 03:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Atsme. Microphones are a part of public speaking (and a number of other things, come to think of it). Samsara 17:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Pseudomallada edwardsi AF 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2015 at 11:36:21 (UTC)

Reason

Inferior to File:Panini, Modern Rome.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Arts in Rome, Giovanni Paolo Panini, Modern Rome, Pendant painting

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Two picture galleries with views of Rome

Nominator

Craigboy (talk)

• Delist — Craigboy (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Digital manipulation of paintings scanned by museums is irresponsible and should not be promoted. Considering you've already nominated both images for deletion on commons, I'm having trouble AGF-ing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me it is obvious that the original scan did not capture the painting's true colors, this is very common with scanners. Compare it with the vibrant colors seen in this photograph. "Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" was nominated for deletion because it is essentially a lower resolution duplicate on an image that was already on wikicommons. Even if you were to pretend its not a duplicate then this image is still obviously inferior (lower resolution, inaccurate colors) and does not deserve to be featured. Also WP:AOBF.--Craigboy (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an exact duplicate; you need to check your understanding of Commons policy. The mere fact that you are nominating this image for delisting means that it and the other image you are nominating are different. And what reference do you have that the colors are inaccurate? Paintings fade after 250 years. They get dirty. When it comes to accuracy, I trust people with immediate access to the painting over armchair experts with photo editing software. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crisco, please do not violate the WP:NPA policy. Panini isn't known for using muted colors and various pictures of the painting show it looking much more vibrant than the current featured image. You're also making the assumption that once scanned the picture was adjusted to insure it was representative of the colors. Here is another picture of the painting.--Craigboy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think that "armchair experts" is a personal attack and directed at you, feel free to bring me to WP:ANI. Again, you have yet to provide any references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have been provided with three.--Craigboy (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alternative photographs are not reliable sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please point me to the section where it says alternative photographs are not reliable sources because I am currently under the belief that is a non-existent rule. What kind of evidence do you even want? I could even go the Met if had to, I visit New York city occasionally.--Craigboy (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given recent edits today, I'm also struggling to AGF on this too, – SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond WP:AOBF do you have any justification for keeping a lower resolution image with inaccurate colors featured?--Craigboy (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Panini isn't known for using muted colors. Almost all pictures taken of the painting show much more vibrant colors than what is shown in the currently featured image. It is reasonable to assume the colors are not accurate.--Craigboy (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Paintings fade, and too many people - yourself included, it appears - are not averse to editing proper scans to provide what they think the painting should look like. Also, don't forget that a lot of digital cameras automatically adjust colors when photographs are taken; that also affects how an image is rendered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art website shows an image of the painting with much higher contrast than the image currently featured.--Craigboy (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as above, museum scans should not be digitally manipulated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the attempted deletion of this file on Commons was speedily closed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because of course it has. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco, please see WP:CIV.--Craigboy (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is uncivil about saying a deletion request has been properly closed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Because of course it has." I'm not going to argue with you about how you're conducting yourself.--Craigboy (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - Very little chance of this closing as D&R. No need to prolong the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given your repeated violations of wikipedia's code of conduct, you're probably not the best person to make that decision.--Craigboy (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Craigboy, Crisco's conduct in this discussion has been perfectly reasonable. Let it drop. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Josh, I'm not going to engage in a debate regarding Crisco's conduct.--Craigboy (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh... I disagree Josh Milburn. I appreciate all that Crisco contributes to FP, but this is some embarrassing conduct to come from an admin. Although I side with keeping the original photo based on the museum scan rule, there are several snide remarks made throughout this topic. Case in point:

  *Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)"

  How encouraging is it to hear something like that when you're trying to contribute? chsh (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chsh, I doubt that you are aware of the background behind that question. I'd recommend having a look at FPC-related discussions from around September and October of last year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Craig, if I was closing this, I wouldn't be !voting "speedy close". I'd have closed this. The "Speedy Close" is a recommendation to other editors, which may be heeded, or may be ignored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please properly indent, talk pages become hard to follow if users do not. I've corrected the indentation to maintain readability.--Craigboy (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I like turtles Tokugawapants (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always been partial to tortoises myself. But turtles are awesome. :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept ---The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as well as there is a clear cut consensus to do so before this gets into a name calling fest.---The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 May 2015 at 18:22:11 (UTC)

Reason

Picture is mostly of pretty clouds in the alps. We should use the cropped version, as it is a better illustration for the cattle and livestock articles.

Articles this image appears in

cattle, livestock, etc.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/cow

Nominator

Kaldari (talk)

• Delist and replace — Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the clouds are eye catching and make the picture what it is. Not a fan of the 4:3 crop. --Dschwen 21:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aesthetically, the current FP is better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not fundamentally against a crop as I agree that it's probably a more encyclopaedic image without so much sky, but I wouldn't have centred the cow so completely. I'd have given it slightly less foreground and more sky and gone for a square aspect ratio, perhaps. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. EV and eye-catching/good-looking are not mutually exclusive. --Janke | Talk 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep uncropped original: It is the better image. Fylbecatulous talk 13:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the crop feels too confining.--Godot13 (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the original is the best. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 23:57:27 (UTC)

Reason

Our featured GIF has been universally replaced with File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami Complete.gif, but has not been D&Red yet. I'm D&R-ing it now.

Articles this image appears in

None. Edit is used in numerous articles, including 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Nominator

 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist and replace —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Why is the 2nd image considered better? Is the only difference that it's super slow? If that's the case, I like the old image better as the animation is a lot smoother. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bit of discussion here, but I'm not really familiar with the technical aspects of GIF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It looks like File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami Complete.gif was the one originally nominated for FP, but File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif was offered as an improvement during the same nomination and is the one that ended up getting promoted. I guess no one ever bothered to switch them out in the articles though. Personally I think File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif (the currently featured one) is a better animation. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no consensus to delist and replace the image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust:: Perhaps this could be "reopened"? The status quo is clearly unacceptable- either the current FP should go back into the article, the current FP should be delisted and replaced, or the current FP should be delisted and not replaced. (I know I didn't participate, so this is partly my fault, but, y'know...). Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopening this would have little purpose, but anybody is free to add back the current FP to articles. Even Kaldari can do that, if he wants. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2015 at 01:03:07 (UTC)

Reason

Only in use in the countershading article. Replaced in the species article by File:Blue dragon-glaucus atlanticus (8599051974).jpg

Articles this image appears in

Countershading

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Glaucus atlanticus 1.jpg

Nominator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Delist —  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Delist - looks a bit weird. Hafspajen (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I like the colors on the original better than on the replacement. They can co-exist. --Pine^✉ 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When one's not in the article, that's not co-existing — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The original is still in the countershading article, but now that I look more closely, I like the original a bit better because it's sharper, so I'm changing to full keep. If this fails, I'll replace the newer image in the article with the old, clearer version and move the other one to somewhere other than lede. --Pine^✉ 03:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 16:15:39 (UTC)

Reason

Didn't achieve the basic Doesn't achieve the current criteria of "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height", the sun reflecting off the water also a serious problem.

Articles this image appears in

Hanko

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hankopan.jpg

Nominator

Exploringlife (talk)

• Delist — Exploringlife) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, a little "retaliation" for my comments about the Hong Kong photo?? Or how else did you find this? ;-) BTW, the size criteria were different when this photo was awarded FP status in 2006... --Janke | Talk 17:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure not a revenge, actually I've seen a delisted one recently in FPC, which also due to pixel problem, so I'm afraid of your featured picture will also be eliminate, even the delist not nominate by me, but someone must nominate in the future. I want to save your photo, but not destroy your contribution. You push me to make progress, I push you to make progress, everyone are pushing each other to make progress for a better life/living. Finland is your homeland, you must easily to retake this photo again and get a better effect than previous one. In fact, I won't mind the results even fail or elect of my photos, if my portfolios paid with sweat and physical strength are totally worthless due to resolution problem, then l'll accept without excuse and buy a better camera to replace with, also consider to withdraw from this election. Exploringlife) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We historically haven't delisted on resolution alone. Not sure the technical issues are enough to merit delisting.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delisting on resolution alone sets a bad precedent. This was a point of discussion in the past, and the general consensus was that pictures which have achieved FP status can't lose that status due to it not meeting the current criteria. I must say I strongly agree. Picture still contributes a fair amount of value to the article, it's a good quality picture overall. Must oppose delisting. Dusty777 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dusty. Samsara 02:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we get a better shot we can replace it, but we don't have one yet. Belle (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2015 at 05:29:53 (UTC)

.

Reason

Proposed replacement is more recent (2015 vs 2007) and contains a new skyscraper (the Tower at PNC Plaza which just opened a few days ago); higher resolution (3840px tall vs 1200px); more dynamic range; better exposure (no significant overexposure in the sky).

Articles this image appears in

Pittsburgh, Mount Washington (Pittsburgh)

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh at dawn

Nominator

dllu (t,c)

• Delist and replace — dllu (t,c) 05:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dllu, Crisco 1492, and Tremonist: As two alternatives are presented for replacement, could you indicate which one you prefer? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the Alternative for its higher resolution but I would support both. dllu (t,c) 00:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the replacement also should depict dawn, what the "alternative" doesn't, even though it might be the better photo. Still I could support both. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support D&R with "Alternative" though there are some issues with the sky being overexposed on the right) Oppose D&R "Proposed replacement" - too noisy and signs are blurred at full size.--Godot13 (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace -- I like Proposed Replacement one (1) the best. It's beautiful. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the images has enough support for a d&r. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 22:04:54 (UTC)

Reason

Tiny! Only 231x231 pixels. Does not meet our size requirements.

Articles this image appears in

Human brain, Hypofrontality, Hypostatic model of personality, Mind uploading, Neuroimaging, Sympathy, Transcortical sensory aphasia

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/September-2004#fMRI scan

Nominator

Tom (LT) (talk)

• Delist — Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, per explanation of LT910001. — Cirt (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Yann (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Aren't the size requirements more flexible for animated images? That said, though, this probably should be a video. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep or delist almost an entire Featured animations category. Size requirements don't really apply to the animated GIFs. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I cannot understand the motivation here. Unless we want to delist nearly the entire featured animations category as SkywalkerPL notes above. There's also good reason to have the animations smaller than still images. Large animations can be inaccessible to mobile users and slower internet connections. There's also no concern about animations being large enough to print, unlike still images. Also, there is no technical inaccuracy concerns here like the other two delist nominations. Jujutacular (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invalid delist reason. Everything promoted prior to changing size guidelines is exempt. Also, as Juju points out, animated media are not judged to the 1.5k pix standard. If you can upload a superior substitute, I'm sure the FP status could be moved to that newer version. Until that time, keep. Samsara 23:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I wasn't aware of the featured animations category. With no size requirement, this nomination is mute.--Tom (LT) (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 22:17:29 (UTC)

Reason

(1) very poor labelleing in English language (2) concerns about technical accuracy.
A "good" image but with some failings that mean it should not be a "featured" image here:

Style

• Labelling of structures inconsistent adjective/noun use ("Humeral x" vs "Radius x")
• Labelling of structures inconsistent - capital/lowercase

Technical

• Articular surfaces of bone shown in the same colour as cartilage
• Abnormal shape of rib cage
• Abnormally abducted left thumb
• Flexor digitorum sublimis is a muscle, not a bone
• No such structure as "supinator"
• Bony fossa shouldn't be labelled

Articles this image appears in

Arm, Humerus, Ulna, Clavicle, Lesser tubercle, Greater tubercle, Radial styloid process, Ulnar styloid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Radial fossa

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton

Nominator

Tom (LT) (talk)

• Delist — Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, per concerns raised by LT910001, above and below. — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As an SVG, the labels should be easy enough to fix. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per comments on technical issues. Too inconsistent for any fixes to be reasonable in the near future. CFCF 💌 📧 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not enough support for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be back next year with this. 4/4 here are oppose. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 
  Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, by Jan van Eyck
• 
  Replacement 1 - Left panel
• 
  Replacement 2 - Right panel

Reason

The recent diptych reminded me of this one, nominated before I had my current understanding of PD-Art. The frame is a 3D object, and thus this is a copyvio (PD-Art doesn't apply).

Articles this image appears in

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, +2

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

Nominator

 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Crop, upload as two images, replace as set Samsara 17:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Crop, upload as two images, replace as set (Jolly good idea) Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine with me, if it sticks in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Well, he is a rather good editor who made a tremendous good job on this article and a shitloads of other good and wonderful art articles too - and among them like 40 Featured art articles - so, at least we can involve him in the discussion, no need to raise your voice like this. Sincerely doubt that article would be anything worth telling about without his and Victorias tremendous and high quality work. Wish there were many more editors like him who were so productive and knowledgeable in art like him. Prefer him way much more than all socks I have to show agf for all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• It (crop etc as stated above) is also fine with me as an alternative to de-listing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Crop, upload as two images, replace as set. To be clear ;) Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voilá. Hafspajen (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Cropping seems like a good idea, but I don't understand why there could be copyright violation of a 15th century work of art. – Editør (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The original (deleted) version had the frame, which is a situation in which PD-Art does not apply. See Commons' discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't seen another version was deleted. Thanks! – Editør (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Crisco 1492:@Sagaciousphil:@Samsara:@Hafspajen:@Ceoil: It looks like the problematic parts were removed from the image. Is a delist still necessary? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those replace as a set votes came after the deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• If Commons is satisfied, then no objection from me. Samsara 05:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Armbrust, my caffeine levels don't seem to be high enough yet as, like Haffy, I'm scratching my dizzy blonde head with a confused look on my face. Can I just say count my vote/comments to be whatever is needed to meet (procedural?) requirements? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) except I'm mainly brunette but I'll count the blonde highlights! Reaches for coffee mug ...[reply]

• @Sagaciousphil: I have no idea, what you don't understand. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Armbrust means: you Sagaciousphil and Crisco need to say:Crop, upload as two images, replace as set not only delist, so he can proceed correctly. (Or maybe Crisco said it's fine with me already-...) Hafspajen (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• @Samsara: Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 16:31:53 (UTC)

Reason

Jake Wartenberg did a good job with the source image he had. Unfortunately, it's not a very good source image. While part of the difference is that the Simpson images exist in at least two states - one with additional colours on lithographic plates - but the important difference is that the LoC produced one of its worst scans for their copy of the image. The Wellcome scan is much, much better. I've cropped it a bit because part of the caption was heavily smudged - but I could grab the text from a third state of the lithograph, File:Crimean War; Florence Nightingale at Scutari Hospital. Colou Wellcome V0015447.jpg (note that the colour of the caps changes from red to blue!) as the text doesn't change between states.

Articles this image appears in

Florence Nightingale, Selimiye Barracks, Hospital, John Forrest (doctor), History of hospitals (all updated to suggested replacement, as I don't see this being controversial.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hospital at Scutari

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist and replace — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace - Hafspajen (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace - Nice. Sca (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace – much better. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:'One of the wards in the hospital at Scutari'. Wellcome M0007724 - restoration, cropped.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 23:37:47 (UTC)

Reason

New version uploaded for the original

Articles this image appears in

Indus River

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Indus River

Nominator

KennyOMG (talk)

• Delist and Replace — KennyOMG (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I fail to see what's wrong with this image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have replaced the original with one that has better resolution, color balance, tones, I think the geometric distortion is a bit better handled, and while I appreciate Bammesk's work his edit made the Alt worse than the original in quite a few respects (like noise and, ironically, unbalanced tones). KennyOMG (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a purely procedural point, you should have both here so that we can easily compare them (since you're proposing a replacement, not having the replacement here is a problem). Second, the horizon in the current FP appears straighter, and the contrast is a bit better. Yes, admittedly there are points where the whites are blown out, but there should be a midpoint between blown highlights and little contrast. The extra resolution is really useful, and if the two issues I pointed out were addressed, I'd be fine with a D&R. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can I link the other version here? :) Also the horizon is straight in the new one, not the old one (it's tricky picture and you only _feel_ that way because you're comparing two and the base of the hills tilt less in the old one). KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevermind got it. Also I think it's not the best to make decisions based on 2x 250px wide images (or even 1920 wide, for that matter!) since the first thing lost during downsampling are the highlights, so every dark area will look darker. Take a look at the mountains on the right at 100% and tell me which one looks better. Take a look at the lower-right "gravel" and tell me which one is lighter. Take a look at the whole image and tell me which one looks more natrural.
        • I was comparing the full resolution images. Also, the blown highlights were mentioned as a shortcoming in the current FP (your new edit handles highlights better) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace — Now I agree that the new version is better. Yann (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R - Reconsidering it, the extra pixels give this new version an edge. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and Replace - New upload has higher quality. Bammesk (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R as we need better images. Think of future. 1500X1500 will stand for a year or two when we will need higher requirements. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 06:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Indus Valley near Leh.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 06:17:20 (UTC)

Reason

Higher resolution version is available now, although its still below the 1500px mandate I am asking for a degree of consideration here, as this was a momentous historical moment for the U.S. which marked the completion of what had been up till that time the largest engineering project ever undertaken.

Articles this image appears in

There's like 40 articles that use one of these two images on the English Wikipedia alone, take a look at the images themselves to see where its used.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GoldenSpikev3.jpg

Nominator

TomStar81 (Talk)

• Delist — TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment W*e can do much better. Have a look at http://brbl-zoom.library.yale.edu/viewer/1062118 and zoom in. Got a download copy of it (found a link) give me a couple days. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case I would definitely move to suspend the nomination pending restoration of the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Progress continues. Might be able to finish tonight. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Restoration done: Delist, replace with high-res. It's done! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace Now that's an impressive replacement for a worthy image! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace – Yann (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace This is a classic, glad we now have a hi-res version! – --Janke | Talk 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D & R --Godot13 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace (but can we have the sepia tones made black and white please? Don't pretend you don't love that, Mr Cuerden; you live for those requests; put that photobombing squirrel in the foreground too.) Belle (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:East and West Shaking hands at the laying of last rail Union Pacific Railroad - Restoration.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2015 at 12:45:31 (UTC)

Reason

The current FP is below minimum resolution.

Articles this image appears in

Study (art), Embryology, Leonardo da Vinci

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Studies of Embryos

Nominator

Brandmeister^talk

• Delist & replace – Brandmeister^talk 12:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good restoration of a historically important sheet of paper. --Tremonist (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R now. I agree with Chris about the colours, though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Brandmeister: FYI: File:Da Vinci Studies of Embryos Luc Viatour.jpg is already featured. Maybe this should be a d&r nomination? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, didn't notice that. The current FP is 1,443 px wide (not used in the recent target article), so propose a D&R now. Brandmeister^talk 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brandmeister: Great. I have reformatted the nomination to use the one for delist nominations, and will move the page as well in a moment. Could you update the rationale? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R though to be honest I prefer the colors of the current FP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The ultimate source for the new image is The Royal Collection and it seems that Hi! magazine have done some lightening of their own (compare the shadowing on the tears on the right hand edge of the RC image and Hi!'s); the Royal Collection have an image with a tone reference next to it; I've no idea how that works, but presumably the RC have corrected the image to match that chart. Also, the hi-res download from the Royal Collection is only 1268x1758; Hi! may have got a higher-res (that's a real word) image from the Royal Collection as far as I know, but can any image wizard tell if they've just blown up the RC image? Brandmeister's crop also removes the top and bottom of the page (unfortunately it was photographed over a light box that wasn't quite big enough, so there were ugly shadows and it is a toss up whether it is better to have those or lose some of the document; it is for me anyway).Belle (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine's version is still more closer to the Royal Collection original than Luc Viatour's photo. And the page itself is untouched, I just cropped the shadow from it as could be seen at full size. The image almost certainly hasn't been blown, as you lose quality in that case, while the magazine's version preserves all details. Most likely they asked the collection to make a hi-res digitization according to the metadata. Brandmeister^talk 13:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't know what I was looking at when I saw your crop had cut a bit off; probably hallucinating. On the basis that it is, as you say, closer to the correct colour than the existing pic Delist & replace. What's the stance on reusing an image that is licensed by the creator for single use only like this one; I'm assuming we have decided that they don't actually have the right to stipulate that. Belle (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R Looks ooo much better. --Janke | Talk 14:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Leonardo da Vinci - Studies of the foetus in the womb.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 00:28:49 (UTC)

• 
  Dante and Virgil in Hell - Old version
• 
  Currently used (Option 1)
• 
  Unaltered colours - possibly more accurate. (Option 2)

• 
  Rye - Old version.
• 
  Replacement image

Reason

Both these FPs have Google Art Project versions, which are much higher quality. I think we need to replace them.

Articles this image appears in

The first (Dante and Virgil in Hell) has been fully replaced with the Google Art Project version.
The second is used in Central Black Earth Region, Eurasian Economic Union, List of Russian artists, and Russia, but probably should be replaced

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rye

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist both, replace (with one of the two options in the Dante case) — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R both, with the unaltered Google version for Dante. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R both, same as Crisco. Mattximus (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R per Crisco. --Tremonist (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R per Adam, same choice as Chris.--Godot13 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R Dante with Option 1; Keep Rye, the Google Art version is too dark. Kaldari (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:William Bouguereau - Dante and Virgile - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with File:Ivan Shishkin - Рожь - Google Art Project.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2015 at 15:41:28 (UTC)

Reason

SVG version available

Articles this image appears in

Horse, Ungulate, Skeletal system of the horse, Limbs of the horse

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horseanatomy.png
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Horseanatomy.png

Nominator

The_Photographer (talk)

• Delist and Replace: — The_Photographer (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Photographer: Shouldn't this be a delist and replace nomination than? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Armbrust. --Tremonist (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let me know if it's done --The_Photographer (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It seems like a no-brainer to delist and replace a PNG diagram with a superior SVG version. However, I think that the scaled small caps on the top right should be removed (and replaced with true small caps or just regular small letters) since the difference in font weight is quite jarring. dllu (t,c) 00:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Jobas (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support as long as the new version is accurate. sst✈^discuss 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:Horse anatomy.svg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The original image isn't used in any articles. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2015 at 20:27:03 (UTC)

Reason

The proposed replacement for the existing images of the 1933 $20 double eagle is higher resolution and, at full size, much sharper and detailed. On the obverse of this Saint-Gaudens double eagle, at Liberty's feet, is a black fiber that would not willingly be separated from the coin. I hope the increased detail mitigates this one flaw. Given that the proposed delist is actually two images, the layout is a bit awkward.

Articles this (replace) image appears in

1933 double eagle, Double eagle, Saint-Gaudens double eagle
Links to the EN:WP article(s) that use the image proposed for delisting: none

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1933 Double Eagle

Nominator

Godot13 (talk)

• Delist & Replace — Godot13 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original uploader notified.--Godot13 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The contours of the current FP are a bit more prominent. They seem almost faded in the suggested replacement, at least at thumbnail size. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, I just felt that the detail and ability to see texture and artistic work was significantly greater on the proposed replacement (not to mention the replacement is fairly sharp at 100%, where the original seems a bit lacking).--Godot13 (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. What if you were to increase the clarity slider a tad? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good suggestion. I will try that and (if it is an improvement) will upload a new version by late Monday...--Godot13 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chris- Change made, file overwritten, not too much change...-Godot13 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or just take another pic, from the half roll you have stashed somewhere. Vesuvius Dogg (talk)
          • If Godot's got half rolls of this stashed somewhere, he's certainly not gonna say so. Doubt he wants the Secret Service after him. ;) (check out the article) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I guess the sharpness does outweigh the thumbnail appearance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the replace – Jobas (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace – Tremonist (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – of course. sst✈^discuss 12:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced  with File:NNC-US-1933-G$20-Saint Gaudens.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2015 at 02:25:35 (UTC)

Reason

Proposed replacement is more recent (2015 vs 2007) and contains a new skyscraper (the Tower at PNC Plaza which just opened a month ago); higher resolution (3500px tall vs 1200px); more dynamic range.

Articles this image appears in

Pittsburgh, Mount Washington (Pittsburgh)

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh at dawn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Pittsburgh Panorama

Nominator

dllu (t,c)

• Delist & Replace — dllu (t,c) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace based on the much higher quality of the 2015 image, which is fantastic all around. However, I caution against the delisting images based on being more recent and containing new skyscrapers. Such images may be valuable in their own right as the best images we have of a particular setting at that point in time. In this case, there has been very little variation in the skyline between the two photos, and it shouldn't be an issue. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Proposed replacement – Jobas (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace – Obviously. Yann (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace – Tremonist (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace – older image has insufficient resolution and has issues noted in its FPC. sst✈^discuss 13:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist & Replace – great quality of the new version SkywalkerPL (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced  with File:Pittsburgh skyline panorama at night.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 January 2015 at 00:01 UTC

Reason

While certainly striking at thumbnail resolution, this image completely lacks quality. 500 × 674 px resolution, and blurry even then, incredibly overprocessed - compare [1] - and quite simply, not amongst Wikipedia's best images. It's time to delist it.

Articles this image appears in

Battle of Passchendaele, Second Battle of Passchendaele, etc.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/October-2004#Village_of_Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Village of Passchendaele Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele aerial view.jpg

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite the technical issues, I still find this high enough in EV, not to mention impossible to replace (unless I am proven otherwise), to keep sorry. You can still see the stark contrast between the two images demostrating the utter devistation to the village from the war. The fact that this town still exists to this day is incredible. gazhiley 11:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could replace it with the original from the IWM, we could replace it with another thing - but there is no inherent right for a bad image to be an FP just because it illustrates something interesting. Keeping this is saying that we will settle, that a really crap image does not deserve any attempt to find better - it's good enough. That's severely wrong and counterproductive, in my opinion. People, seeing a featured picture, stop looking for better. That's a major problem, and it's why we need to be a little ruthless about FPs from 2004, that wouldn't have any chance whatsoever at FPC in the last seven years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, but until someone provides a better version I still stick to my opinion. I for one found this very interesting, and read the articles it is connected to, which is essence is what the FP process is about... And, as a side point, please don't use a red font to try and emphasise your opinion - I for one respect anyone's viewpoint, irrespective of colour of the font... It's unneccessary to use it... struck as red font now changed to black. gazhiley 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gazhiley: Yeah, sorry: I decided you were right. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Yeah, size isn't everything, but we've got two images in a file that doesn't even approach our minimum/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a great picture, with great EV, but maybe not quite a FP. Hafspajen (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Agree with the high EV, however the picture quality is very, very low. Those photographs were taken with higher resolution, even if they have been destroyed, I would suspect a better scan is available out there. Mattximus (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the current download version is like twice the size, yes there is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I agree with the above. We can recognise that an image is valuable and striking without having to call it FP-worthy- this seems to be a case of that sort. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Even though EV is important for any FP, there are other facotrs such as image quality which are obviously lacking in this image - DUCK404 a (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - National Names 2000 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:19:55 (UTC)

Reason

Unused, again. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.

Articles this image appears in

None

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases; Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Hydrogen

Nominator

 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist--Godot13 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist –Rreagan007 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 17:21:28 (UTC)

Reason

Unused. There appears to be no consensus to keep this image in any articles.

Articles this image appears in

None

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases

Nominator

 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist--Godot13 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist –Rreagan007 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 06:35:31 (UTC)

Reason

Replaced universally with File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D Small.gif, as that one actually moves.

Articles this image appears in

None.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/4 Stroke Engine
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Four Stroke Engine

Nominator

 — Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Delist —  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. The animated gif is more informative; having been replaced, this one isn't used in any articles. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Ditto. Sca (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Bammesk (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Yann (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 02:09:40 (UTC)

Reason

Unused. Replaced by File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - May 2007.jpg, by the same photographer.

Articles this image appears in

None.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg

Nominator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Delist —  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delist' Agreed, no need to keep both FPs. I didn't know there was still a duplicate. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2007 image isn't an FP, apparently. This never passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, good point. That's the problem with duplicates, or virtual duplicates - sometimes they really complicate matters. Some people prefer one, some people prefer the other but support for any one version is diluted by choice. Looks like that nomination failed because support was split between both, and yet the one that people almost half of the people supported (the one being delisted) is now the one that isn't being used. I wonder if the better solution is simply to use this image in one or more articles instead then. It's so similar to the version being that it's a trivial change to make. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Sca (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist (for now, neutral on replacing). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hold on. I think, as per my comments above, the more sensible proposition is to decide whether this image or this image should be used in the various articles that relate to it. Realistically, it should be a delist and replace nomination rather than a straight delist because its 'successor' is being used, and only failed to pass because nobody could agree on which image was better, rather than because nobody thought either should be featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I should have, yes, but I doubt 2 days will be enough to reach a consensus on that. We can try, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be simple enough to veto this nomination then, by re-adding this image into one or more articles. ;-) There'd be a persuasive argument in favour of it, since it's a FP and the other image is not... I don't mean to making a pain of myself but it seems like delisting is counterproductive. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, let's try a D&R. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Diliff: Could you update your !vote. IMO you could notify the other participant about the d&r proposal so they reply swiftly. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pinging Sca and Josh.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R - Rather prefer the colors of the 2007 image, and it is used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R – Happy to be guided by Chris and Diliff's opinions as to the correct procedure. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R, but I have to say on reflection that I prefer the texture of the original image and would equally support adding the 'original' image into an article, I don't think there would be significant opposition to that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer the slightly off-corner shot for its sense of depth. Thus I'd say: first choice keep, second choice d&r. Chick Bowen 22:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? – I agree with Diliff. I did notice the texture (and depth) on second glance, but I'm confused about voting D&R if we're keeping the original. Sca (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unused" is a sufficient reason in itself for delist. Doesn't seem to be a quorum to promote the new one; can nominate it for FP seperately; however, an unused image cannot be an FP, that's a strict criterion that no vote can overturn. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute. I admit I lost track of this nomination so I didn't do what I was planning to do.. But as per the votes, we didn't vote to delist. We voted to delist and replace - only a single vote was for delist only. The equivalent ('replacement' image) is used in many articles and it would have been trivial to replace it in the article with the original - in many ways, as per the discussion, it is a superior image. I think you've jumped the gun here, although I concede that a lot of time passed without any action. I think it would have been more prudent though, to have had a quick quorum about what to do with it before going for a straight delist, given the discussion above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diliff: I agree this is a tough decision, but you must agree that if the image isn't used, it cannot, as in, there is a blanket ban on it being a featured image. I'd prefer to do this as D&R, but it's a vote short of "R", and I don't think we should push a promotion through without cause. This was open for over a month. There was plenty of time for the original to be added to articles; that it was not rather precludes it remaining an FP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you know how sometimes discussions and nominations stall and people forget about them when they no longer show up on watchlists. That doesn't mean we just close them and move on, we prod people and try to find a solution that best suits the situation. This was a bureaucratic close but not a sensible one IMO. If it was genuinely not being used because it was replaced by something better, fine. But the image in use is arguably not better, and I doubt there would be any arguments in swapping it in at least one of the major articles. Yes, it didn't happen in time, but that's just because I forgot, not because it couldn't be done. Hence a prod would have been the better action. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to reverse if:

1. The image is used in at least a few relevant articles
2. It stays there for at least one week.

Until it's stable in articles, I don't see much point arguing. You have still not added it to a single article. Usage is not an optional criterion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only arguing about the procedural aspect of closing it before the actions agreed upon in the nomination (the replace) had taken place, not whether usage is an optional criterion. Anything can be reversed, I just wanted to point out that I didn't think it should have happened in the first place without at least some poking of the involved parties. Let it stand, what's done is done. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree there should have been prodding, I'd also say that should have happened when the nom was suspended. One shouldn't need to prod a month into a 10-day nomination before closing it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2015 at 23:52:01 (UTC)

Reason

Replaced in all the higher EV positions with File:Chichen Itza 3.jpg

Articles this image appears in

Mexico, Tourism in Mexico

Previous nomination/s

nom, delist

Nominator

 — Chris Woodrich (talk)

• Delist —  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Sca (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Mattximus (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Godot13 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

Reason

Only used in a list article, which doesn't discuss the painting significantly and therefore it has minimal EV.

Articles this image appears in

List of works by Thomas Eakins

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A negress

Nominator

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus}

• Delist — Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Per Armbrust. Sca (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Not a bad scan, but agree with the minimal EV. Mattximus (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - We've gotten higher standards for paintings since this was passed. I've tried hunting down enough information for this to get an article, but I failed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2015 at 04:37:45 (UTC)

Reason

800 × 769 pixels is out of Featured picture standard even if that is a historic picture.

Articles this image appears in

Trench warfare, Australian Army during World War I, 4th Division (Australia), Battle of Passchendaele, Hooge in World War I, Duckboards, I ANZAC Corps, List of World War I memorials and cemeteries in Flanders, Military history of Australia during World War I, Claud Jacob, Rudolph Lambart, 10th Earl of Cavan, Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/April-2004#Chateau Wood Ypres 1917

Nominator

Alborzagros (talk)

• Delist — Alborzagros (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We haven't historically delisted FPs for simple number of pixels, and we certainly shouldn't hold a ten-year-old FP to today's standards for pixel count. Short of actually having a higher resolution version available, I don't think we should delist for that reason. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, possibly replace @Crisco 1492: However, we have delisted for having a far better quality one available. This is a low-quality, blurry hackjob of File:Chateauwood.jpg. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with that image is that the source is incorrect; that's not the same version on the War Memorial's webpage. But it's enough to knock out my "keep" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crisco 1492: Checking the history, that source seems to have been "helpfully" added after the fact by someone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way, we still need a ref. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning delist This is one of the iconic images of the Australian Imperial Force (Australia's main combat force of World War I), which helps to explain why it's so heavily used. But I agree that this version isn't of FP standard in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace, if possible. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. I think I may personally disagree with the consensus view about delisting old FPs, but, here, that's a moot point, as better is possible. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and replace, if possible. --Hafspajen (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 00:49:58 (UTC)

Reason

Excessively low resolution combined with very poor quality of reproduction. Well below featureable quality, despite its importance.

Articles this image appears in

1st Air Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy), Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japanese aircraft carrier Zuikaku, Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zuikaku sinking

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment Considering the rarity of pictures depicting the Japanese side of the war, I feel the historical value of this picture outweighs the negatives at the present time (Few of the available Japanese pictures are of great quality anyway.) Is there a replacement image available? I would gladly support a delist-replace. Dusty777 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the insistence on delist-replace in these things is productive. While rare, I'm not convinced these are so rare that a confusing composition, very low-resolution, extremely low-quality and heavily-damaged reproduction, and poor documentation at the file page are all overcome.

Now I don't mind if an image is a little under resolution, but 740 × 529 is too low to reproduce at much more than postcard size - and the low quality means it won't look particularly good even then. This simply isn't amongst our best images.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the quality of this photo, you are surely right, Adam. But are there reasonable alternatives in better shape? We need to check first before voting. --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious replacements, and I did a few searches to see what I could find, but that shouldn't matter - it encourages the searching out of images if there aren't featured ones already, and strongly discourages it if there isn't. For example, one of the other images I found when lookign through the older images was an Eisenhower image, of which I did find a higher resolution version. I suspect, had it not been featured, and thus taken off the search for many, that a higher-res version existed would have been learned long ago. I think a good criteria is: if every other website on the subject has images about as good, about as high resolution, and about as sharp, what is the point of drawing attention to the image by calling it featured? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Adam. Delist then. --Tremonist (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that the reason we pick Featured pictures was... To show which pictures contribute the highest amount of value to Wikipedia articles, not based off of how much a picture, or similar pictures are used across the internet.... Am I interpreting your statement correctly Adam? (Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll only bite once.) Dusty777 00:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - I will agree with the nominator. Presumably the original photograph still exists and could get a better scan with some restoration. Mattximus (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as above. I am not convinced that the rarity can outweigh the huge technical problems. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does a higher resolution and better quality version actually exist? The comments on the image's composition are a bit confusing: think about the circumstances this photo was taken in! - the carrier was listing by a truly alarming level (compare the deck to the horizon), the photographer would have been fearing for his life, and it shows a pretty remarkable ceremony by the crew. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large (24 Mb) tiff file of a similar scene is available at [2]. I imagine that a tiff of this photo is also available there (but can't find it...) Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's MUCH higher quality. Not perfect, but you can at least do something with that. I think we've proven my point. =) Thanks, Nick! I'll get on that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Zuikaku finds this image pretty quickly: http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-73000/NH-73069.html Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Adam - for some reason my search for the same term didn't find it! If anyone is interested in restoring the image, it would be worthwhile given its very strong EV. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Which of the two, though? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both have lots of EV, but I'd recommend the current image (eg, [3]) - there are less arms in the way and the tilt of the ship is more apparent. Alternately, the pair would make a great dual FP nomination ;) By the way, I'm moving to delist as it's clear that a much superior version is possible. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 12:04:24 (UTC)

Reason

One of the last of the 2004 featured pictures, and with some reason, however, we simply have a lot better available, for example, File:Dendrogyra cylindrus (pillar coral) (San Salvador Island, Bahamas) 1 (15513345363).jpg

Articles this image appears in

Coral, Coral reef, Pillar coral Replaced with better image.

Previous nomination/s

Predates standard FP nominations. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/October-2004#Pillar coral

Nominator

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

• Delist Could possibly replace. — Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• D&R if possible. The colours are beautiful. --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tremonist: I'm just not quite sure if the other image should be separately nominated if they're this different. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes, sure, Adam. Then this has to happen in two steps: Delist first, new nomination thereafter. --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Sca (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. I agree that a separate nomination would be required for the other image. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Am I the only one reminded of an old science museum exhibit? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)}
• Delist - Godot13 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2015 at 21:59:20 (UTC)

Reason

Not an accurate depiction as explained below. Stylistically inconsistent and messy.
This image is an inaccurate depiction of a human skeleton. It is still of "high" quality but we should not be having a featured image that is not accurate. Previous delisting nom here but per this failed good image nomination, the winds may have changed with regard to the necessary standards of accuracy for images.
Here are my and Paul_012's list of concerns:

Accuracy

• Skeleton has very broad shoulders vs hips
• Legs are shown in valgus position, not accurate
• Knee joint bones are huge compared with leg.
• Femur is just as thick as the tibia (not true)
• The cervical vertebrae too thick.
• The triangle below the clavicle unnaturally big.
• The rib cage expands sidewards strangely and does have the normal curvature
• Distal third of the clavicle too thick.
• Spacing of the shoulder joints is too wide. (Humeral head seems inferiorly subluxated.)
• Left thumb is impossibly over-abducted.
• Patella seems inferiorly subluxated.
• Tibia is too thick.
• Ankles are generally poorly represented.

Style - technical

• Image not shown in anatomical position
• "Cranium" most commonly referred to as the skull (not labelled()
• Calcaneus labelled but not other tarsal or carpal bones
• Manubrium labelled but is part of sternum
• No such structure as "pelvic girdle"

Style - visual

• Titles difficult to read and close to lines
• Numbers of vertebrae impossible to read
• Red vs blue lines unclear?

Articles this image appears in

File:Human skeleton back en.svg: List of bones of the human skeleton & Outline of human anatomy
File:Human skeleton front en.svg: Human skeleton, List of bones of the human skeleton, Human musculoskeletal system, Outline of human anatomy

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skeleton back.svg
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Images of the human skeleton

Nominator

Tom (LT) (talk)

• Delist — Tom (LT) (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist -per reason above (too bad we cant use this [4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, per explanation by LT910001, thank you — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, I can point to a number of additional faults with both images, but I don't think we need to list more - this seems very clear to me. CFCF 💌 📧 17:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for Halloween —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my previous comments. Would prefer if corrections could be made though. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Agree with the above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted both images. --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2015 at 04:42:00 (UTC)

Reason

I made this image in 2006. We now have many thousands of similar rendered protein structure images, many of which are of equally pretty and symmetrical molecular complexes, and this particular image is of unimpressive technical quality by current standards. (Compare this image of a very similar protein complex from the same article: File:1CZD.png.) I just made an incidental edit to an article it's used in and was reminded of it, and was surprised to see it's still an FP.

Articles this image appears in

DNA clamp, DNA replication, proliferating cell nuclear antigen, replisome, protein trimer

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1axc tricolor.png

Nominator

Opabinia regalis (talk)

• Delist — Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – insufficient resolution. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist As you wish - you don't often see somebody asking for delisting of his/her own image... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we rerender and replace? I mean, it's an important enough protein to have its own article, so it's not like any other protein could replace its encyclopedic value. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Adam Cuerden: Every human protein has its own article :) And the Protein Data Bank - the source of the data for images like this - has over 100k structures in it. I considered just updating it, but even a modern rendering would be very ordinary; it's basically a historical accident that this one became the featured example. I don't really know much about the FP process, but I suggest looking at Evolution and evolvability's work for high-quality protein images. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, it's a good example of β-pleated sheets and α-spirals, at a glance, and also of modular proteins. And, honestly, given good renders, I don't think FP would be against every human protein having an FP, if they had decent articles, good images, and were nominated in sets so that we don't have - what is it, ~ 20,000 proteins nominated? Though, I suppose, the exact structure will only be known for a certain number. What's that at now, a couple thousand? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, I hadn't thought about it that way (and to be honest, most have crappy articles). There are about 28k structures in the PDB listed as human proteins, but there's a lot of redundancy - looks like around 2400 unique proteins. I know the EBI did an automated batch of protein renders a few years ago and uploaded the results to Commons, but those are looking rather dated now too. I left a note at WT:MCB for their thoughts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, let's see... since this is a DNA replication protein, it might make sense to start with a complete set of known, structurally-well-defined proteins involved in DNA replication, or just all proteins that act directly on DNA (possibly excluding mitochondrial proteins). I think our largest set is around a hundred or so; don't see why you couldn't reasonably go that level, though that count would need to include any secondary views of the proteins. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the kind words Opabinia regalis. I like the idea of doing some general updating of important protein images, Adam Cuerden. I have some PyMOL scripts that I can run to do some cleaner renders of structures. However, really good images will require some manual decision making on what features to highlight (active sites, key residues, substrates, cofactors, oligomers etc) which is sadly harder to automate. If there is interest, I'd happily make some sets of images in the same fundamental style (e.g. Enzyme, Theta_defensin or Plant_lipid_transfer_proteins). I can open source my PyMOL scripts if that's useful to the projects too. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Evolution and evolvability: That sounds perfect. They're certainly valuable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - happy to be of service, Op. Atsme^📞📧 16:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]