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.
Since there is a 2012 image in her article as well, replace, even though I think the older photo is slightly better composed. Fun fact: A friend of mine is the mother of a Scottish paralympic athlete. I should ask her about photos. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I've slipped the old one into the article for now. I think there's enough justification for it to be in there, but the FP star should move at some point. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment My inclination on this one is that it's a very different pose and angle, so there might be a place for it, though I don't like the GDFL thing. I'm almost inclined to put it into the article for the image with the caption along the lines of "The bird has a very distinctive yellow streak below its eye", and see if it sticks. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
(This nom defaults to delist, since it's not used in articles, and, on the whole, I'm fine with that. I'm just bringing up the only option for salvaging its FP status) Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Huh. Actually... and it's a bit late to realise this I know: @
JJ Harrison: Isn't the image we just promoted Juvenile plumage? It lacks the black stripe under the yellow. Or is it a subspecies? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - I still believe the images are too similar to have two featured pictures. Both images are good, but the recent promotion is excellent.
Mattximus (
talk)
01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is not enough support to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - gender and subspecies not identified, unused. While this doesn't have the same information as the existing FP
File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) female.jpg, it does have the same information as some of the other pictures in the article. The lack of gender and subspecies identification make it difficult to pick out which image replaced this one. P.S. did you notify the nominator and
photographer?
MER-C18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
yes, I was notified. Checking criteria for delisting, I don't mind if image becomes obsolete at some point: agree that something that was good at 2013 may become upgraded with better one at 2019
Artemy Voikhansky (
talk)
08:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree - now that the primary motivation for delisting has been addressed, I don't think this image's use by date has been reached.
MER-C17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Being a photographer behind the image, I'd refrain from expressing an opinion on the matter as I might be not as neutral as I'm expected to be. I'll leave this on the community.
Artemy Voikhansky (
talk)
18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – This has a better composition than other images in the article, IMO. I would like to see it stay in the article. True it has less resolution than the
other FP, but it is a better depiction of the bird's body, tail, overall proportions. This is a comment, not a vote.
Bammesk (
talk)
17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Image is now in a gallery. I think use in a gallery usually means not significant encyclopedic value, plus there is a FP in the infobox. On the other hand, this is the only depiction of that subspecies and the composition is a clear depiction of the full bird. I am neutral on this nom.
Bammesk (
talk)
A sidenote (my opinion) about nominating subspecies that appear only in a gallery: I see sufficient EV if the nom has at least 2 images (i.e. a set, of 2 subspecies), in which case the nom is an automatic depiction of subspecies variation; or if there is sufficient text in the article describing the particular (the nominated) subspecies.
Bammesk (
talk)
02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - this contains the same information as
File:Common grass blue.jpg (also up for delisting). At least one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for getting rid of this one specifically is not all that clear without a clearly better replacement. Both are used in the article. I prefer the other image, for what it's worth.
MER-C19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
That may be the case, but you'll find it a lot easier to delist FPs that have been superseded with better images (even if the newer images are not of FP standard).
MER-C13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Some process related notes. Sorry in advance for the long wall of text! As far as the nom reason "Not up to current FP standards": A) if by "current standards" a nominator means minimum pixel requirement, then the reason section should say so, and my reply would be: it is a good reason when we have a higher resolution replacement, otherwise it is not (on its own and automatically) a good reason, because the number of pixels is an agreed upon consensus aimed at incremental improvement over time, I don't think it makes sense to delist each and every previous FP just because an
WP:RFC ups the pixel consensus. B) if by "current standards" a nominator means issues other than minimum pixel requirement, then a nominator should provide some hints in the nom reason, so each individual reviewer doesn't have to chase and guess it for themselves. Also, Charles, please fill out the nom fields above so each reviewer doesn't have to go through multiple clicks to see where/if the image is used in articles, and why it was supported or opposed in previous noms.
Bammesk (
talk)
18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I thought I was doing the FP project a favour by delisting, but it's too time-consuming if one has to fill in lots of fields. Not up to current FP standards = quality standards, not size. For me, one click on the image should be enough to agree delist.
Charlesjsharp (
talk)
19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
About "it's too time-consuming", 5 votes means 4 reviewers have to go through the "time-consuming" steps, instead of just one nominator. I think that's why the fields are there. About nom reason: words like "focus", "saturation", etc. equals less time consumption for reviewers, and no time consumption for nominator (specially when the file is less than 1500px). Yes you are doing the project a favor, however, leaving volunteer reviewers in the dark and expecting them to do the footwork is a bad idea.
Bammesk (
talk)
20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not sure what the current conventions are, but I think it's easier for reviewers if you show both images as I've done now. Hope you don't mind
Yann. Revert if you disagree or if I'm wrong. Also it's best if you tell people what the actual changes are, i.e., why do you think it's now better? You haven't given a solid reason - "retouched" is very vague and could mean anything. --
jjron (
talk)
07:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for adding the retouched version. I didn't do the retouch, so I don't know the details, but I have noticed this version. AFAICT some vertical lines were removed. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
10:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
It's been retouched to remove the strings that the frames are suspended from.
The better-known version of this artwork is
a retouched version, presumably hand-retouched in 1948. Our copy is a scan of the original photo without the original retouching; this digital edit remakes some, but not all, of the changes in the better-known version. (Not changed: assistant's hands visible on the left; wooden support on steps; cropping; painting behind Dali. For me that makes this a bit of a weird compromise - it's neither the famous version, nor the original unedited photo. I'd suggest we keep the current version.
TSP (
talk)
12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - per conversation above. The strings that have been edited out are part of the photograph, not damage. It's true that the better-known version of this lacks the strings, but the other differences from the better-known version remain, which makes this an odd compromise that I think is less encyclopedic than the original photo. Arguably also a violation of
FP criterion 8.
TSP (
talk)
12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep current — blurring and 'glow' at the statue's edges. I don't particularly see the need to have less noise on the background than on the main subject; I don't object to it, but it isn't worth the cost of even the slightest negative impact on the main subject.
TSP (
talk)
12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace – It's an improvement. Edge glow is hardly noticeable at full size (it's confined to 2 pixels in head and shoulder area), there is no edge blurring. The noise improvement is very noticeable.
Bammesk (
talk)
15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – The color correction on Earth looks appropriate but @
Earthsound: can you speak to the color changes in the Moon? Did you go back to the film original source or correct the NASA version? ---
Coffeeand
crumbs07:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – All versions I've seen printed on paper have had a brownish tint to the moon. OTOH, the astronauts described the surface as grey. Now, in the candidate the moon is slightly bueish (~5-10 higher in B channel), and there is even a slight cyan cast in some of the craters (R channel ~10 lower than G abd B), carried over from the original. How can we know what's right? (Looking at the moon from earth won't help much due to atmospheric filtration...) --
Janke |
Talk09:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
They're just the same material as in
Commons:Category:Lunar samples, under direct sunlight. So they should be roughly the same color as that. Alternatively, what color is the full moon as seen from earth at zenith (when least colored by the atmosphere)? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – There are few print issues that don't exist on, or were removed from, the NASA version, mostly visible on the moon's surface - the most obvious are a long mark on the rightmost crater, and a few blotches to the right of the pair of craters to the right of this - I wonder if these could be addressed? I'm also feeling instinctively a little uncomfortable about featuring an image that differs so much in coloration from the official published NASA versions - are there
WP:OR issues?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TSP (
talk •
contribs)
12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment given the angle makes the church's shape a lot easier to figure out - how far the portico extends, etc - I'm not so sure we should be too quick to shout "supersedes" instead of "complements" Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - it is almost identical to the recently promoted image, it does not provide almost any new EV to have a slightly different angle. Should every building have a featured image taken from the front, then a few steps to the left?
Mattximus (
talk)
15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This is nearer a 45° angle, and shows the structure of the building much more clearly in my eyes. The Greek Cross shape is basically impossible to make out from the new FP as there's no depth. Perhaps both shouldn't be FPs, but the rush to remove this from articles seems a mistake. In fact, the new FP is super misleading - although in an unavoidable way - as to the overall shape as it makes the nearest side look very different from the entrances left and right, as the roof can't be seen from the low angle. OpposeAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs15:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am leaning to delist, two things can be better, the deep blue sky doesn't look natural, for a 45 degree angled shot the shadows lean into the view rather than lean away (a photo from the other side or a better time of day can fix this). About not removing this photo from article(s), I agree, it is informative and shows another dimension. But we can just delist it.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC) . . . Delist –
Bammesk (
talk)
03:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Adam Cuerden; comparing this with the front-on view, this is the much better of the two. It allows a good portion of the left-side of the cathedral to be viewed, and the new image is over-bright in the whites. Delist the other one, and keep this one. —
Amakuru (
talk)
10:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 14:21:04 (UTC)
Reason
Not used in any articles. It's a hybrid and the cultivar and location are not specified - which is just as bad for EV as if the species weren't identified. Plus
Dahlia has enough images already.
Don't see many images better than this one in the article. I believe, this was replaced in the Dahlia article by the current lead image which is not identified as well --
Muhammad(talk)15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd say Delist, but put it back into the article (which I have done). It's certainly photographically excellent and better than the replacement, but maybe not quite FP level with the identification issue. Good to see you back, Muhammad! Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 19:28:20 (UTC)
Reason
My original was delisted at Commons a couple of months ago after it was discovered that the deciding !vote in
the original nomination three years ago had been cast by a sock of a now-banned user. I was given the option of renominating, but chose instead to reprocess the image taking advantage of what I have learned since the original nomination, resulting in
one with more muted highlights on the clouds and the building, easier on the eyes I think.
It passed with more support than the original nomination.
So, I have decided that a delist and replace here is warranted as well.
I am the creator and uploader in both situations; I have notified the original nominator
here although he has not edited since mid-2016.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 15:10:34 (UTC)
Reason
To be replaced by
File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg. The current FP was promoted in 2005 when this alternative was not available, I believe. It also fails
WP:FP? #8 (bullet 4): "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. (See:
Moon landing conspiracy theories#Photographic and film oddities) It is also of lower resolution. There was a previous discussion to delist where it was kept in 2013.
The current FP currently appears in 2 pages in the article namespace compared to the 18 pages it appeared in 2013.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 09:41:15 (UTC)
Reason
Superseded by official museum reproduction. While the pixel count is smaller, the level of detail is about the same and the colors are now authoritative.
Replace. I think we have to go with the authoritative colors over something that appears prettier but may not match the artist's intent or execution. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That's true for paintings. I'm not so sure that's true for mass-produced prints, where we should be providing an idealised copy. The big crack on the right, for instance, is not part of the encyclopedic value. I'm afraid I started on a restoration when you hadn't said anything for a day, and have... basically finished it before seeing this, so... sorry for stepping on toes. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm rather taken aback by this -- it's such a widely adapted image, in the heavily colour-saturated version; is this really what the original poster looked like? Have the colours faded over time?
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the old FP is oversatured. I am not surprised, this is quite often done to boost the appeal. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
10:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It can be difficult to distinguish oversaturated because the original poster was oversaturated from oversaturated because somebody boosted it later. But in this case I think we should take the colors from the official government scan (as used in these restorations) as definitive. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace – Good faith effort on the first restoration attempt, but there were significant differences to historical. The shape of the woman in the rear for example.---
Coffeeand
crumbs18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I... was honestly surprised to see this was an FP. The restoration of the current FP is competent enough, but the original is a very, very poor reproduction, and is very overexposed. The jacket on the current FP almost looks drawn, due to the level of detail in it. The Carjat is, I think, much better. I haven't done any replacement in articles, because I felt I should let the votes come in first.
Oppose Sorry. This restoration is better. But the Nadar is a better portrait, with Jules Vernes eyes fully open and in contact with the viewer. P. S. Burton (
talk)07:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace. I agree with P. S. Burton's observation but I think the increase in image quality outweighs it. If we find a better original to restore, then we can always replace again.
MER-C16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's just me, but at the scale it's shown at, the replacement seems much harder to read? Also, is it showing the same format? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
(1) It's used at a width of 400px in the article. (2) I'll quote from the talk page of the current FP: "Since this is a version 4 (33x33) QR symbol, it doesn't actually contain version information. That is present only in version 7 (45x45) and larger symbols. If version information were present, the two blue blocks would contain the same pattern of dark and light (but rotated 90 degrees)." The replacement image shows a v7 QR code.
MER-C03:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is this version commonly used? The examples in the wild don't include 'em, but then, I'd imagine that there's a limit to how and where they can be photographed. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
In that case, I'm afraids I can't support a replace, because it's misleading as to the structure of the more common ones as it shows information not present in them, and can't support keeping the original, because it's inaccurate. I can only support fixing the original and turning this into a set, or neither being featured. DelistAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs04:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist & replace per nom. The article's illustrated with plenty of images, and the lead image already shows the more common smaller version. I think it's better that the image used to illustrate the code structure also shows how the alignment patterns work in larger versions. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 07:51:55 (UTC)
Reason
I'm nominating these together, as I think the problems, while somewhat distinct, are similar enough. Neither are used; the Trepanation one has doubts as to whether it's really showing trepanation; and the pirate image just doesn't thumbnail, at all. They're all FPCs that simply failed to thrive: good enough to get to FPC, but the problems meant they left their articles thereafter. Also, as the person who restored, and, I believe, nominated them all (some under Shoemaker's Holiday, my erstwhile pseudonym), I think that I'm uniquely placed to ask this: Remove my FP credits for these.
@
Mattximus: This is a bit of history, but for a while, I was upset at... let's call them X - for telling me, about 8 years ago now to trim my list of FPs to just the best ones, when I realised later X listed pretty much everything they had touched. But now I'm kind of glad to have divested of a lot of my early works. The only thing being reminded they existed would do is mean I'd want to delist them. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs14:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:45:37 (UTC)
Reason
Chronologically obsolete, 2005 FP, not used in any articles. I've put up the most recent version of this image as a replacement, but I'm not too fussed if this gets delisted outright - the new image comes up short in a number of aspects.
Delist without replacing. If the first one is obsolete and unused, that's not a great FP. The new one doesn't look great and the words are unreadable at thumbnail. — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 20:32:42 (UTC)
Reason
Unused JPEG diagram, 2006 FP, dumb file name. I've put up the SVG version as a replacement, but I believe it falls short of current FP standards - in particular, the use of raster images makes the S in SVG rather pointless.
Delist If nothing else, the replacement seems to be a bit more amateurish looking. Think it's the fonts. Which given it then uses a non-vector image, is kind of a terrible SVG conversion. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.3% of all
FPs01:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - although this contains the same information as
File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG, that image is not used in
the article. I agree one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for delisting this specific image is not clear. Maybe you should edit this nomination or withdraw/create another along the lines of the "most valued review" process. (We don't need a new type of nomination permanently, once we clear out the existing duplicates we should be fine with new nomination, if successful delist the old FP.)
MER-C19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I may be biased given that I've taken the picture but I strongly believe this is better than the proposed one by Kadavoor. The composition is more appealing, wing details are better preserved, it is less tightly cropped and does not have a distracting twig behind its back. --
Muhammad(talk)15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
While that may be true, we should not keep since it is not in any article, which means it should be delisted per featured nomination rules, no?
Mattximus (
talk)
16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist really good for 2007-era FPs, and were it still in use, I might call for it to be kept. But no. (Of course, per the not-used-in-articles rule, the voting doesn't matter much) Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs22:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)reply
One of the guidelines states that "If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted." Also, the standards have changed over time, so it's expected that photos are taken at a much higher resolution. --
Walk Like an Egyptian (
talk)
06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – noisy and oversaturated, I don't see posterization, I am Ok with the pixel count for older FPs. I like that it shows the lake, the other images in the article don't show it. I am neutral on the nom.
Bammesk (
talk)
16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 00:57:34 (UTC)
Reason
Similar to the below (and I wish I had included it there), but with a very confusing edit history - it looks like a copy-move - this is another image where it was thought to be one thing, this is disputed, crap, oh well, not really useable now. Again, an excellent image let down by documentation.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2019 at 17:31:10 (UTC)
Reason
Species unidentified, not used in any articles. Furthermore there is a comment on the talk page that the genus could also be wrong - "This is not Homoneura, these could be Peplomyza - but you would need a pinned specimen to be sure".
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 10:35:13 (UTC)
Reason
See
the discussion here. There are numerous issues relating to the clarity of this map, and the fact that the key doesn't seem complete. Some of these issues were also raised at
the original FPC and weren't really resolved, so I think it's dubious if this should have even been promoted in the first place.
Comment I agreed with the pull from the main page, per the concerns raised by
Edwardx. There are clear deficiencies in the key both stylistic and substantive; it reads like it was translated by someone whose first language isn't English. Istanbul should be Constantinople. Beyond that, there seems to have been limited consideration in the original discussion of the details of the data in the map; I strongly agree with
Nick-D that the map is confusing and attempts to present too much information.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 15:41:26 (UTC)
Reason
Not used in any articles because it has been replaced by
a higher resolution image that contains more information. (The replacement isn't quite up to FP standards - it was a little overexposed, the edit made it worse to the point of blown highlights.)
Well, there is the (in this case, very small) chance someone could find a use for the image or address some of the documentation concerns.
MER-C19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 20:26:24 (UTC)
Reason
This is clearly misidentified. Copying from my post on the Commons file talk page,
This article states that newborns of this species weigh ca. 11g at birth. Little brown bats, for example, weigh 5.5–12.5 g as adults. Look at the size of an adult little brown bat relative to the human hand, though
[2]. They're small, but definitely not small enough to sit on a fingertip. This is definitely a wrong identification. I believe this image thus fails 5 and 6 of the
Featured picture criteria. We may never know the real ID of this bat neonate, giving this image limited encyclopedic value.
Oppose - Delist nominee has some problem. User
agreed that cannot give a definitive answer, and this is not megabat, but Lesser short-nosed fruit bat. Again user talk about weight, why he/she can't describe/object by size? Look at
here and tell where it fits? I took it in Sri Lanka. Your disbelief should be with reliable fact. Give me factual explanation than disbelief. --
AntanO16:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Cynopterus sphinxis a species of megabat as it is in the family
Pteropodidae. Not only is this neonate clearly of a different family based on size, let alone the same genus and species, but it is clearly a different family because it has a
tragus clearly visible in the photograph. Bats in Pteropodidae do not have tragi[3]. No, I don't know what this bat species is (which makes two of us). I know with certainty that it is not this species though, which is enough to say that it shouldn't be a FP.
Enwebb (
talk)
18:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Why do you talk about Cynopterus sphinx. It is
Lesser short-nosed fruit bat and it has tragus. If you reject the ID, give correct one with reference. I photographed with context awareness and I know what are the spices were there. I have given the geo location too. You just oppose without valid reason. --
AntanO03:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the incorrect scientific name. You are correct, it is labeled as Cynopterus brachyotis. No, that species doesn't have a tragus. It is a megabat and megabats do not have tragi. I provided a reference above. My reason for oppposing (and everyone else's) is that you have incorrectly identified this bat species. Bats are generally identified using an adult specimen in hand with a dichotomous key. Measurements such as forearm length, greatest length of skull, weight, hind foot length, ear length, and echolocation characteristics are all used. I will not be making a positive ID of this species and I shouldn't have to, because I'm not the one who uploaded it to Commons. It's not my job to fix your ID. As someone who spends many hours working on bat articles, however, I am taking these steps because your erroneous ID is harming public knowledge.
Enwebb (
talk)
03:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
First link given is for
Greater short-nosed fruit bat, and second link for
Little brown bat which is 5.5–12.5 g (as adults). But, I named it for
Lesser short-nosed fruit bat which is 21 - 32 g / 30 - 100 g (as adults). Therefore, newborn can sit on finger. Also, Lesser short-nosed fruit bat has tragi/ear, and you can see it. You said Pteropodidae do not have tragi. What is that ear-shaped portion? Have you ever seen newborn of Lesser short-nosed fruit bat? You just referring from book knowledge. But, I have seen and photographed where Lesser short-nosed fruit bats come to eat fruits. There is no Greater short-nosed fruit bat or Little brown bat (which is not in Sri Lanka). A few were trapped at a house when they changed flight and gave birth. There was 99% change for Lesser short-nosed fruit bat unless 1% change for microbat which infiltrated to that house! --
AntanO17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The pinna are the external ears. Megabats have ears/pinna. The tragi are cartilage flaps in front of the ear opening. Megabats don't have tragi. The bat pictured has a tragus in front of its ear. Therefore it cannot be the species you say it is (nor any bat in that family).
Enwebb (
talk)
18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - on enwiki's FPC process, it's important to get the species right (and it should be used in articles). Ideally, when we find a misidentification, we would also find the correct identification, but it sounds like that's an exceedingly difficult task by photo alone. Unless someone else can provide an alternative, we should thus delist. Commons FP status is less of a problem, though. Misidentification isn't good, but I don't know how willing people would be to delist just on that basis... — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 18:31:20 (UTC)
Reason
Replaced by SVG. Even so, not too fussed if this gets delisted - I think this diagram is not complex enough to be FP and the SVG replacement could have better presentation, particularly representing the carbon atoms with dots (as seen in the current FP).
Comment. In theory I'm a big fan of replacing png by svg when possible. In practice, in this instance, I'm not sure about the quality of the replacement. In the png version, we have a classic ball-and-stick visualization of the molecules, with atoms represented as small balls and bonds represented as cylinders with visible thickness. Both are shaded, differently, to indicate their three-dimensional nature. Additionally, farther-away objects are shown in proper perspective (with smaller-looking balls and thinner-looking cylinders), making the depth of each object in each diagram clear. In the svg version, all we have is featureless line segments where the sticks were, no balls, and no easy way to see which objects are supposed to be closer and which farther. So I think some significant quality is lost. On the other hand, if we're going to use the svg in our articles going forward instead of the png, we can't continue to list the png as featured. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with this sentiment entirely. I've informed the author of the SVG version so that they can make these improvements.
MER-C16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist, though it's pretty much just procedural at this point. No articles = no FP, and an unidentified photo isn't appropriate for articles. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs17:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist Can we not have an automated process that removes FP from any image not in an article (for say a month) after photographer and nominator have been notified?
Charlesjsharp (
talk)
19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
It may be worth giving a public chance for the image to be reinstated, and, rarely, there are cases where we feature, say, an image divided into parts (not that usable in articles, but best quality) and the still-pretty-big combined file. But maybe an expedited process, like, a list of proposed delists of that sort, that auto-delist if no-one objects? This'll help catch cases where, to give a couple recent examples, the wrong image of a set gets deleted when an image was moved to the infobox (
Les Troyens), the image was replaced, usually by an IP, with a much poorer replacement (several cases), or where a delist-and-replace process would be better (The Currier-and-Ives Assassination of Lincoln, say). It also makes Wikibreaks a bit less dangerous. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The replacement certainly looks more like the bits I've seen around there (I've been to Utah, but not Bryce Canyon specifically). Lots of red sandstone up there, and arid conditions - think Monument Valley. The one up for delisting - Oh, Delist, of course. If it matters - reminds me of 1970s/80s magazine colour reproduction; they were consistently off in that sort of direction. That sky! Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs03:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 15:01:14 (UTC)
Reason
Species not identified, not used in any articles. This is a bit of a shame, though - the photo would have excellent EV otherwise, and a modern replacement would easily be FP.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 01:49:02 (UTC)
Reason
The image that was promoted,
[4], shows that with careful colour balancing to match the original filters, this image can be extremely gorgeous. It was overwritten with a vastly inferior copy, however, so it's no wonder it's left articles again. The three original plates
are available, and it may well interest someone to attempt to redo the work at high-quality, but this... is not that. I don't think Gorski used the exact modern Cyan-yellow-magenta colours - or, if he did, they need a little tweaking as to intensity - and it shows. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs01:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Why delist, when it is easy to fix - Alt 2 is just an example, can be done even better - if someone (hint, hint) spends a little more than my 45 seconds at the RGB level sliders... --
Janke |
Talk07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist — Not that easy to fix, I don't think? As well as the colour balance issues, there's substantial colour banding (made more obvious in the alt) and lots of damage; I think it would need to go back to the original plates. I don't think that, in this state, it's one of Prokudin-Gorsky's best - compare his photo of the
Monastery of St Nil for example.
TSP (
talk)
12:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
It's a more informative view of the town, but I'm a bit confused over why we would replace one 20th-century image by another to illustrate a section about the 19th century. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I think it would be useful in Lugano, perhaps in the 19th century section - it's a 20th-century image, but it illustrates the 19th-century development discussed in that section.
TSP (
talk)
14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist – The ideal solution is to restore the three plates individually and recompose the color photograph. That is way beyond my skill level. Hopefully someone will. Either way the result is delisting as this file should remain as is and the new restoration would be a new file. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure about restoring individually, exactly. You'd want to have them as three layers while restoring them, so you could pixel-perfect match outlines and shapes. because even an outline being shifted just one pixel off would make for ugly haloing. Restoration generally isn't nearly that exact on unimportant details (E.g. if there's a blob over a patch of blurry grass, you'd just healing brush some blurry grass from elsewhere - but that would lead to colour craziness if it was only one layer in an RGB set, because it probably wouldn't match the grass in that area on the other layers), but would need to be here. Only thing worse than that is both halves of a stereoscopic image, where no mainstream image program will let you properly view the image in order to match properly. There's a reason we've only ever featured half of any historical stereoscope shot. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs09:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist per above. The original FP falls way short of modern resolution requirements, so reverting the new upload will not address the reasons for delisting.
MER-C17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 22:54:25 (UTC)
Reason
Quite simply, they aren't used in articles, and, offhand, I don't see any particularly good place where they could be used: the first two are random collections of images, and the third doesn't have a clear message. The last one might be salvageable. Original nomination was kind of weird, but it was from back in 2007. That said, this was a 22-item set, so that (apparently) 18 images are stable and in use is impressive. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist Agree with nom, they are not used in any article, and though nice scans, they do not add EV to hot air balloon since we have much better photographs of those.
Mattximus (
talk)
13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry but we don't "have much better photographs of those" - these images show the pioneers, and photography wasn't yet invented at the time of these balloons / balloonists !!! ;-) --
Janke |
Talk19:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
No consensus to delist the above two featured pictures. As the images are still used (were added back in an article more than seven days), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 11:15:49 (UTC)
Reason
The picture used on the subject's article
was changed in 2016, for the current version which has brighter looking blues. The proposed replacement was uploaded by
Pimbrils with the comment "Better version frorm
[5], with slight color adjustment". I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, so will leave it to the community to assess which one is better, and we can retain that as FP and use it in all the affected articles. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Revert to Original - Honestly, these "slight colour adjustment"s to paintings never seem to care much about how they actually look. They're being presented as an example of her art, not just as a representation of her; we should be as close to the art as possible. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs16:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Proposed Replacement. I actually like the proposed replacement, the color adjustment seem to be slight and given more texture to the painting.
Gnosis (
talk)
20:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 09:32:25 (UTC)
N.B. I know this is big, but I'd suggest we just run this as "Does anyone think these are good enough to put these in articles?", since they auto-delist if not in use. This is to help the cleanup on
WT:FPC.
Combined because of similar reasoning. All are unused images by
Fir0002. For ca. 2006, they're quite good, but they're A. unused in articles. B. Kind of low resolution by modern standards, and C. That GDFL/CC-NC cross that, while I don't really want to delist over as a sole reason as I understand the motivation, would never pass nowadays. With all three of these the case, we may as well delist. Fir left in 2013, and hasn't been on except to update the contact information on his user page since.
Delist - For anyone not in the know, one of the requirements of GDFL is that the reuser must copy the full text of
the license every time they use the work. That's because GDFL was designed for software, where that's no big deal, and not for images. That makes these effectively commercially non-free in any medium outside the internet. For that reason, these photos would not
even be allowed for upload to Commons as of last October. As is fairly well communicated in the
attached custom user template, this amounts to "call me and we'll talk about payment". If a worst case scenario, this type of licensing can amount to baiting for careless reusers, to set them up for copyright trolling, which is part of why Commons depreciated it.
GMGtalk10:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the bundling of this nomination - not all of these images are obvious delists. I recommend the nominator withdraw this and nominate the images for delisting individually. To wit:
Peach: just removed, not replaced with anything. Could reinsert, I guess.
Mammatus cloud: again, I'm surprised at the low quality of images in the article. In fact, this might even be the best image we have of this phenomena.
I agree with adding back photos of
Ulysses butterfly and
Mammatus cloud into the articles (I agree with MER-C's comments, above, on these two photos). I am neutral on adding back the White peach photo (BTW there is no photo of a whole peach, not nectarine, in the
peach article).
Bammesk (
talk)
01:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C and
Bammesk: Thanks for that. As I said, I think this is a useful exercise in evaluating a set of images with similar problems, but varying mitigating factors, but its success depends on actually saving the ones worth saving. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
Since there is a 2012 image in her article as well, replace, even though I think the older photo is slightly better composed. Fun fact: A friend of mine is the mother of a Scottish paralympic athlete. I should ask her about photos. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs08:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I've slipped the old one into the article for now. I think there's enough justification for it to be in there, but the FP star should move at some point. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs02:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment My inclination on this one is that it's a very different pose and angle, so there might be a place for it, though I don't like the GDFL thing. I'm almost inclined to put it into the article for the image with the caption along the lines of "The bird has a very distinctive yellow streak below its eye", and see if it sticks. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
(This nom defaults to delist, since it's not used in articles, and, on the whole, I'm fine with that. I'm just bringing up the only option for salvaging its FP status) Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Huh. Actually... and it's a bit late to realise this I know: @
JJ Harrison: Isn't the image we just promoted Juvenile plumage? It lacks the black stripe under the yellow. Or is it a subspecies? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs12:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - I still believe the images are too similar to have two featured pictures. Both images are good, but the recent promotion is excellent.
Mattximus (
talk)
01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There is not enough support to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - gender and subspecies not identified, unused. While this doesn't have the same information as the existing FP
File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis leucomelanurus) female.jpg, it does have the same information as some of the other pictures in the article. The lack of gender and subspecies identification make it difficult to pick out which image replaced this one. P.S. did you notify the nominator and
photographer?
MER-C18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
yes, I was notified. Checking criteria for delisting, I don't mind if image becomes obsolete at some point: agree that something that was good at 2013 may become upgraded with better one at 2019
Artemy Voikhansky (
talk)
08:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree - now that the primary motivation for delisting has been addressed, I don't think this image's use by date has been reached.
MER-C17:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Being a photographer behind the image, I'd refrain from expressing an opinion on the matter as I might be not as neutral as I'm expected to be. I'll leave this on the community.
Artemy Voikhansky (
talk)
18:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – This has a better composition than other images in the article, IMO. I would like to see it stay in the article. True it has less resolution than the
other FP, but it is a better depiction of the bird's body, tail, overall proportions. This is a comment, not a vote.
Bammesk (
talk)
17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Image is now in a gallery. I think use in a gallery usually means not significant encyclopedic value, plus there is a FP in the infobox. On the other hand, this is the only depiction of that subspecies and the composition is a clear depiction of the full bird. I am neutral on this nom.
Bammesk (
talk)
A sidenote (my opinion) about nominating subspecies that appear only in a gallery: I see sufficient EV if the nom has at least 2 images (i.e. a set, of 2 subspecies), in which case the nom is an automatic depiction of subspecies variation; or if there is sufficient text in the article describing the particular (the nominated) subspecies.
Bammesk (
talk)
02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used (was added back in the article more than seven days ago), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - this contains the same information as
File:Common grass blue.jpg (also up for delisting). At least one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for getting rid of this one specifically is not all that clear without a clearly better replacement. Both are used in the article. I prefer the other image, for what it's worth.
MER-C19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
That may be the case, but you'll find it a lot easier to delist FPs that have been superseded with better images (even if the newer images are not of FP standard).
MER-C13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Some process related notes. Sorry in advance for the long wall of text! As far as the nom reason "Not up to current FP standards": A) if by "current standards" a nominator means minimum pixel requirement, then the reason section should say so, and my reply would be: it is a good reason when we have a higher resolution replacement, otherwise it is not (on its own and automatically) a good reason, because the number of pixels is an agreed upon consensus aimed at incremental improvement over time, I don't think it makes sense to delist each and every previous FP just because an
WP:RFC ups the pixel consensus. B) if by "current standards" a nominator means issues other than minimum pixel requirement, then a nominator should provide some hints in the nom reason, so each individual reviewer doesn't have to chase and guess it for themselves. Also, Charles, please fill out the nom fields above so each reviewer doesn't have to go through multiple clicks to see where/if the image is used in articles, and why it was supported or opposed in previous noms.
Bammesk (
talk)
18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I thought I was doing the FP project a favour by delisting, but it's too time-consuming if one has to fill in lots of fields. Not up to current FP standards = quality standards, not size. For me, one click on the image should be enough to agree delist.
Charlesjsharp (
talk)
19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
About "it's too time-consuming", 5 votes means 4 reviewers have to go through the "time-consuming" steps, instead of just one nominator. I think that's why the fields are there. About nom reason: words like "focus", "saturation", etc. equals less time consumption for reviewers, and no time consumption for nominator (specially when the file is less than 1500px). Yes you are doing the project a favor, however, leaving volunteer reviewers in the dark and expecting them to do the footwork is a bad idea.
Bammesk (
talk)
20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Not sure what the current conventions are, but I think it's easier for reviewers if you show both images as I've done now. Hope you don't mind
Yann. Revert if you disagree or if I'm wrong. Also it's best if you tell people what the actual changes are, i.e., why do you think it's now better? You haven't given a solid reason - "retouched" is very vague and could mean anything. --
jjron (
talk)
07:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for adding the retouched version. I didn't do the retouch, so I don't know the details, but I have noticed this version. AFAICT some vertical lines were removed. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
10:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
It's been retouched to remove the strings that the frames are suspended from.
The better-known version of this artwork is
a retouched version, presumably hand-retouched in 1948. Our copy is a scan of the original photo without the original retouching; this digital edit remakes some, but not all, of the changes in the better-known version. (Not changed: assistant's hands visible on the left; wooden support on steps; cropping; painting behind Dali. For me that makes this a bit of a weird compromise - it's neither the famous version, nor the original unedited photo. I'd suggest we keep the current version.
TSP (
talk)
12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - per conversation above. The strings that have been edited out are part of the photograph, not damage. It's true that the better-known version of this lacks the strings, but the other differences from the better-known version remain, which makes this an odd compromise that I think is less encyclopedic than the original photo. Arguably also a violation of
FP criterion 8.
TSP (
talk)
12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep current — blurring and 'glow' at the statue's edges. I don't particularly see the need to have less noise on the background than on the main subject; I don't object to it, but it isn't worth the cost of even the slightest negative impact on the main subject.
TSP (
talk)
12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace – It's an improvement. Edge glow is hardly noticeable at full size (it's confined to 2 pixels in head and shoulder area), there is no edge blurring. The noise improvement is very noticeable.
Bammesk (
talk)
15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – The color correction on Earth looks appropriate but @
Earthsound: can you speak to the color changes in the Moon? Did you go back to the film original source or correct the NASA version? ---
Coffeeand
crumbs07:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – All versions I've seen printed on paper have had a brownish tint to the moon. OTOH, the astronauts described the surface as grey. Now, in the candidate the moon is slightly bueish (~5-10 higher in B channel), and there is even a slight cyan cast in some of the craters (R channel ~10 lower than G abd B), carried over from the original. How can we know what's right? (Looking at the moon from earth won't help much due to atmospheric filtration...) --
Janke |
Talk09:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
They're just the same material as in
Commons:Category:Lunar samples, under direct sunlight. So they should be roughly the same color as that. Alternatively, what color is the full moon as seen from earth at zenith (when least colored by the atmosphere)? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – There are few print issues that don't exist on, or were removed from, the NASA version, mostly visible on the moon's surface - the most obvious are a long mark on the rightmost crater, and a few blotches to the right of the pair of craters to the right of this - I wonder if these could be addressed? I'm also feeling instinctively a little uncomfortable about featuring an image that differs so much in coloration from the official published NASA versions - are there
WP:OR issues?— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TSP (
talk •
contribs)
12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment given the angle makes the church's shape a lot easier to figure out - how far the portico extends, etc - I'm not so sure we should be too quick to shout "supersedes" instead of "complements" Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - it is almost identical to the recently promoted image, it does not provide almost any new EV to have a slightly different angle. Should every building have a featured image taken from the front, then a few steps to the left?
Mattximus (
talk)
15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This is nearer a 45° angle, and shows the structure of the building much more clearly in my eyes. The Greek Cross shape is basically impossible to make out from the new FP as there's no depth. Perhaps both shouldn't be FPs, but the rush to remove this from articles seems a mistake. In fact, the new FP is super misleading - although in an unavoidable way - as to the overall shape as it makes the nearest side look very different from the entrances left and right, as the roof can't be seen from the low angle. OpposeAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs15:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – I am leaning to delist, two things can be better, the deep blue sky doesn't look natural, for a 45 degree angled shot the shadows lean into the view rather than lean away (a photo from the other side or a better time of day can fix this). About not removing this photo from article(s), I agree, it is informative and shows another dimension. But we can just delist it.
Bammesk (
talk) 03:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC) . . . Delist –
Bammesk (
talk)
03:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Adam Cuerden; comparing this with the front-on view, this is the much better of the two. It allows a good portion of the left-side of the cathedral to be viewed, and the new image is over-bright in the whites. Delist the other one, and keep this one. —
Amakuru (
talk)
10:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 14:21:04 (UTC)
Reason
Not used in any articles. It's a hybrid and the cultivar and location are not specified - which is just as bad for EV as if the species weren't identified. Plus
Dahlia has enough images already.
Don't see many images better than this one in the article. I believe, this was replaced in the Dahlia article by the current lead image which is not identified as well --
Muhammad(talk)15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd say Delist, but put it back into the article (which I have done). It's certainly photographically excellent and better than the replacement, but maybe not quite FP level with the identification issue. Good to see you back, Muhammad! Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 19:28:20 (UTC)
Reason
My original was delisted at Commons a couple of months ago after it was discovered that the deciding !vote in
the original nomination three years ago had been cast by a sock of a now-banned user. I was given the option of renominating, but chose instead to reprocess the image taking advantage of what I have learned since the original nomination, resulting in
one with more muted highlights on the clouds and the building, easier on the eyes I think.
It passed with more support than the original nomination.
So, I have decided that a delist and replace here is warranted as well.
I am the creator and uploader in both situations; I have notified the original nominator
here although he has not edited since mid-2016.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 May 2019 at 15:10:34 (UTC)
Reason
To be replaced by
File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg. The current FP was promoted in 2005 when this alternative was not available, I believe. It also fails
WP:FP? #8 (bullet 4): "Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. (See:
Moon landing conspiracy theories#Photographic and film oddities) It is also of lower resolution. There was a previous discussion to delist where it was kept in 2013.
The current FP currently appears in 2 pages in the article namespace compared to the 18 pages it appeared in 2013.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 09:41:15 (UTC)
Reason
Superseded by official museum reproduction. While the pixel count is smaller, the level of detail is about the same and the colors are now authoritative.
Replace. I think we have to go with the authoritative colors over something that appears prettier but may not match the artist's intent or execution. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)reply
That's true for paintings. I'm not so sure that's true for mass-produced prints, where we should be providing an idealised copy. The big crack on the right, for instance, is not part of the encyclopedic value. I'm afraid I started on a restoration when you hadn't said anything for a day, and have... basically finished it before seeing this, so... sorry for stepping on toes. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.8% of all
FPs21:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm rather taken aback by this -- it's such a widely adapted image, in the heavily colour-saturated version; is this really what the original poster looked like? Have the colours faded over time?
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I think the old FP is oversatured. I am not surprised, this is quite often done to boost the appeal. Regards,
Yann (
talk)
10:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
It can be difficult to distinguish oversaturated because the original poster was oversaturated from oversaturated because somebody boosted it later. But in this case I think we should take the colors from the official government scan (as used in these restorations) as definitive. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist and replace – Good faith effort on the first restoration attempt, but there were significant differences to historical. The shape of the woman in the rear for example.---
Coffeeand
crumbs18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I... was honestly surprised to see this was an FP. The restoration of the current FP is competent enough, but the original is a very, very poor reproduction, and is very overexposed. The jacket on the current FP almost looks drawn, due to the level of detail in it. The Carjat is, I think, much better. I haven't done any replacement in articles, because I felt I should let the votes come in first.
Oppose Sorry. This restoration is better. But the Nadar is a better portrait, with Jules Vernes eyes fully open and in contact with the viewer. P. S. Burton (
talk)07:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Replace. I agree with P. S. Burton's observation but I think the increase in image quality outweighs it. If we find a better original to restore, then we can always replace again.
MER-C16:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's just me, but at the scale it's shown at, the replacement seems much harder to read? Also, is it showing the same format? Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs03:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
(1) It's used at a width of 400px in the article. (2) I'll quote from the talk page of the current FP: "Since this is a version 4 (33x33) QR symbol, it doesn't actually contain version information. That is present only in version 7 (45x45) and larger symbols. If version information were present, the two blue blocks would contain the same pattern of dark and light (but rotated 90 degrees)." The replacement image shows a v7 QR code.
MER-C03:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is this version commonly used? The examples in the wild don't include 'em, but then, I'd imagine that there's a limit to how and where they can be photographed. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
In that case, I'm afraids I can't support a replace, because it's misleading as to the structure of the more common ones as it shows information not present in them, and can't support keeping the original, because it's inaccurate. I can only support fixing the original and turning this into a set, or neither being featured. DelistAdam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs04:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist & replace per nom. The article's illustrated with plenty of images, and the lead image already shows the more common smaller version. I think it's better that the image used to illustrate the code structure also shows how the alignment patterns work in larger versions. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 07:51:55 (UTC)
Reason
I'm nominating these together, as I think the problems, while somewhat distinct, are similar enough. Neither are used; the Trepanation one has doubts as to whether it's really showing trepanation; and the pirate image just doesn't thumbnail, at all. They're all FPCs that simply failed to thrive: good enough to get to FPC, but the problems meant they left their articles thereafter. Also, as the person who restored, and, I believe, nominated them all (some under Shoemaker's Holiday, my erstwhile pseudonym), I think that I'm uniquely placed to ask this: Remove my FP credits for these.
@
Mattximus: This is a bit of history, but for a while, I was upset at... let's call them X - for telling me, about 8 years ago now to trim my list of FPs to just the best ones, when I realised later X listed pretty much everything they had touched. But now I'm kind of glad to have divested of a lot of my early works. The only thing being reminded they existed would do is mean I'd want to delist them. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs14:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:45:37 (UTC)
Reason
Chronologically obsolete, 2005 FP, not used in any articles. I've put up the most recent version of this image as a replacement, but I'm not too fussed if this gets delisted outright - the new image comes up short in a number of aspects.
Delist without replacing. If the first one is obsolete and unused, that's not a great FP. The new one doesn't look great and the words are unreadable at thumbnail. — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 20:32:42 (UTC)
Reason
Unused JPEG diagram, 2006 FP, dumb file name. I've put up the SVG version as a replacement, but I believe it falls short of current FP standards - in particular, the use of raster images makes the S in SVG rather pointless.
Delist If nothing else, the replacement seems to be a bit more amateurish looking. Think it's the fonts. Which given it then uses a non-vector image, is kind of a terrible SVG conversion. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.3% of all
FPs01:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - although this contains the same information as
File:Common Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus by Kadavoor.JPG, that image is not used in
the article. I agree one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for delisting this specific image is not clear. Maybe you should edit this nomination or withdraw/create another along the lines of the "most valued review" process. (We don't need a new type of nomination permanently, once we clear out the existing duplicates we should be fine with new nomination, if successful delist the old FP.)
MER-C19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I may be biased given that I've taken the picture but I strongly believe this is better than the proposed one by Kadavoor. The composition is more appealing, wing details are better preserved, it is less tightly cropped and does not have a distracting twig behind its back. --
Muhammad(talk)15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
While that may be true, we should not keep since it is not in any article, which means it should be delisted per featured nomination rules, no?
Mattximus (
talk)
16:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist really good for 2007-era FPs, and were it still in use, I might call for it to be kept. But no. (Of course, per the not-used-in-articles rule, the voting doesn't matter much) Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.4% of all
FPs22:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)reply
One of the guidelines states that "If the image to be delisted is not used in any articles by the time of closure, it must be delisted." Also, the standards have changed over time, so it's expected that photos are taken at a much higher resolution. --
Walk Like an Egyptian (
talk)
06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – noisy and oversaturated, I don't see posterization, I am Ok with the pixel count for older FPs. I like that it shows the lake, the other images in the article don't show it. I am neutral on the nom.
Bammesk (
talk)
16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 00:57:34 (UTC)
Reason
Similar to the below (and I wish I had included it there), but with a very confusing edit history - it looks like a copy-move - this is another image where it was thought to be one thing, this is disputed, crap, oh well, not really useable now. Again, an excellent image let down by documentation.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2019 at 17:31:10 (UTC)
Reason
Species unidentified, not used in any articles. Furthermore there is a comment on the talk page that the genus could also be wrong - "This is not Homoneura, these could be Peplomyza - but you would need a pinned specimen to be sure".
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 10:35:13 (UTC)
Reason
See
the discussion here. There are numerous issues relating to the clarity of this map, and the fact that the key doesn't seem complete. Some of these issues were also raised at
the original FPC and weren't really resolved, so I think it's dubious if this should have even been promoted in the first place.
Comment I agreed with the pull from the main page, per the concerns raised by
Edwardx. There are clear deficiencies in the key both stylistic and substantive; it reads like it was translated by someone whose first language isn't English. Istanbul should be Constantinople. Beyond that, there seems to have been limited consideration in the original discussion of the details of the data in the map; I strongly agree with
Nick-D that the map is confusing and attempts to present too much information.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 15:41:26 (UTC)
Reason
Not used in any articles because it has been replaced by
a higher resolution image that contains more information. (The replacement isn't quite up to FP standards - it was a little overexposed, the edit made it worse to the point of blown highlights.)
Well, there is the (in this case, very small) chance someone could find a use for the image or address some of the documentation concerns.
MER-C19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2019 at 20:26:24 (UTC)
Reason
This is clearly misidentified. Copying from my post on the Commons file talk page,
This article states that newborns of this species weigh ca. 11g at birth. Little brown bats, for example, weigh 5.5–12.5 g as adults. Look at the size of an adult little brown bat relative to the human hand, though
[2]. They're small, but definitely not small enough to sit on a fingertip. This is definitely a wrong identification. I believe this image thus fails 5 and 6 of the
Featured picture criteria. We may never know the real ID of this bat neonate, giving this image limited encyclopedic value.
Oppose - Delist nominee has some problem. User
agreed that cannot give a definitive answer, and this is not megabat, but Lesser short-nosed fruit bat. Again user talk about weight, why he/she can't describe/object by size? Look at
here and tell where it fits? I took it in Sri Lanka. Your disbelief should be with reliable fact. Give me factual explanation than disbelief. --
AntanO16:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Cynopterus sphinxis a species of megabat as it is in the family
Pteropodidae. Not only is this neonate clearly of a different family based on size, let alone the same genus and species, but it is clearly a different family because it has a
tragus clearly visible in the photograph. Bats in Pteropodidae do not have tragi[3]. No, I don't know what this bat species is (which makes two of us). I know with certainty that it is not this species though, which is enough to say that it shouldn't be a FP.
Enwebb (
talk)
18:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Why do you talk about Cynopterus sphinx. It is
Lesser short-nosed fruit bat and it has tragus. If you reject the ID, give correct one with reference. I photographed with context awareness and I know what are the spices were there. I have given the geo location too. You just oppose without valid reason. --
AntanO03:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the incorrect scientific name. You are correct, it is labeled as Cynopterus brachyotis. No, that species doesn't have a tragus. It is a megabat and megabats do not have tragi. I provided a reference above. My reason for oppposing (and everyone else's) is that you have incorrectly identified this bat species. Bats are generally identified using an adult specimen in hand with a dichotomous key. Measurements such as forearm length, greatest length of skull, weight, hind foot length, ear length, and echolocation characteristics are all used. I will not be making a positive ID of this species and I shouldn't have to, because I'm not the one who uploaded it to Commons. It's not my job to fix your ID. As someone who spends many hours working on bat articles, however, I am taking these steps because your erroneous ID is harming public knowledge.
Enwebb (
talk)
03:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)reply
First link given is for
Greater short-nosed fruit bat, and second link for
Little brown bat which is 5.5–12.5 g (as adults). But, I named it for
Lesser short-nosed fruit bat which is 21 - 32 g / 30 - 100 g (as adults). Therefore, newborn can sit on finger. Also, Lesser short-nosed fruit bat has tragi/ear, and you can see it. You said Pteropodidae do not have tragi. What is that ear-shaped portion? Have you ever seen newborn of Lesser short-nosed fruit bat? You just referring from book knowledge. But, I have seen and photographed where Lesser short-nosed fruit bats come to eat fruits. There is no Greater short-nosed fruit bat or Little brown bat (which is not in Sri Lanka). A few were trapped at a house when they changed flight and gave birth. There was 99% change for Lesser short-nosed fruit bat unless 1% change for microbat which infiltrated to that house! --
AntanO17:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The pinna are the external ears. Megabats have ears/pinna. The tragi are cartilage flaps in front of the ear opening. Megabats don't have tragi. The bat pictured has a tragus in front of its ear. Therefore it cannot be the species you say it is (nor any bat in that family).
Enwebb (
talk)
18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist - on enwiki's FPC process, it's important to get the species right (and it should be used in articles). Ideally, when we find a misidentification, we would also find the correct identification, but it sounds like that's an exceedingly difficult task by photo alone. Unless someone else can provide an alternative, we should thus delist. Commons FP status is less of a problem, though. Misidentification isn't good, but I don't know how willing people would be to delist just on that basis... — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2019 at 18:31:20 (UTC)
Reason
Replaced by SVG. Even so, not too fussed if this gets delisted - I think this diagram is not complex enough to be FP and the SVG replacement could have better presentation, particularly representing the carbon atoms with dots (as seen in the current FP).
Comment. In theory I'm a big fan of replacing png by svg when possible. In practice, in this instance, I'm not sure about the quality of the replacement. In the png version, we have a classic ball-and-stick visualization of the molecules, with atoms represented as small balls and bonds represented as cylinders with visible thickness. Both are shaded, differently, to indicate their three-dimensional nature. Additionally, farther-away objects are shown in proper perspective (with smaller-looking balls and thinner-looking cylinders), making the depth of each object in each diagram clear. In the svg version, all we have is featureless line segments where the sticks were, no balls, and no easy way to see which objects are supposed to be closer and which farther. So I think some significant quality is lost. On the other hand, if we're going to use the svg in our articles going forward instead of the png, we can't continue to list the png as featured. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with this sentiment entirely. I've informed the author of the SVG version so that they can make these improvements.
MER-C16:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist, though it's pretty much just procedural at this point. No articles = no FP, and an unidentified photo isn't appropriate for articles. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs17:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist Can we not have an automated process that removes FP from any image not in an article (for say a month) after photographer and nominator have been notified?
Charlesjsharp (
talk)
19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
It may be worth giving a public chance for the image to be reinstated, and, rarely, there are cases where we feature, say, an image divided into parts (not that usable in articles, but best quality) and the still-pretty-big combined file. But maybe an expedited process, like, a list of proposed delists of that sort, that auto-delist if no-one objects? This'll help catch cases where, to give a couple recent examples, the wrong image of a set gets deleted when an image was moved to the infobox (
Les Troyens), the image was replaced, usually by an IP, with a much poorer replacement (several cases), or where a delist-and-replace process would be better (The Currier-and-Ives Assassination of Lincoln, say). It also makes Wikibreaks a bit less dangerous. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The replacement certainly looks more like the bits I've seen around there (I've been to Utah, but not Bryce Canyon specifically). Lots of red sandstone up there, and arid conditions - think Monument Valley. The one up for delisting - Oh, Delist, of course. If it matters - reminds me of 1970s/80s magazine colour reproduction; they were consistently off in that sort of direction. That sky! Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 6.9% of all
FPs03:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2019 at 15:01:14 (UTC)
Reason
Species not identified, not used in any articles. This is a bit of a shame, though - the photo would have excellent EV otherwise, and a modern replacement would easily be FP.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2019 at 01:49:02 (UTC)
Reason
The image that was promoted,
[4], shows that with careful colour balancing to match the original filters, this image can be extremely gorgeous. It was overwritten with a vastly inferior copy, however, so it's no wonder it's left articles again. The three original plates
are available, and it may well interest someone to attempt to redo the work at high-quality, but this... is not that. I don't think Gorski used the exact modern Cyan-yellow-magenta colours - or, if he did, they need a little tweaking as to intensity - and it shows. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs01:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Why delist, when it is easy to fix - Alt 2 is just an example, can be done even better - if someone (hint, hint) spends a little more than my 45 seconds at the RGB level sliders... --
Janke |
Talk07:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist — Not that easy to fix, I don't think? As well as the colour balance issues, there's substantial colour banding (made more obvious in the alt) and lots of damage; I think it would need to go back to the original plates. I don't think that, in this state, it's one of Prokudin-Gorsky's best - compare his photo of the
Monastery of St Nil for example.
TSP (
talk)
12:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
It's a more informative view of the town, but I'm a bit confused over why we would replace one 20th-century image by another to illustrate a section about the 19th century. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I think it would be useful in Lugano, perhaps in the 19th century section - it's a 20th-century image, but it illustrates the 19th-century development discussed in that section.
TSP (
talk)
14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist – The ideal solution is to restore the three plates individually and recompose the color photograph. That is way beyond my skill level. Hopefully someone will. Either way the result is delisting as this file should remain as is and the new restoration would be a new file. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs07:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure about restoring individually, exactly. You'd want to have them as three layers while restoring them, so you could pixel-perfect match outlines and shapes. because even an outline being shifted just one pixel off would make for ugly haloing. Restoration generally isn't nearly that exact on unimportant details (E.g. if there's a blob over a patch of blurry grass, you'd just healing brush some blurry grass from elsewhere - but that would lead to colour craziness if it was only one layer in an RGB set, because it probably wouldn't match the grass in that area on the other layers), but would need to be here. Only thing worse than that is both halves of a stereoscopic image, where no mainstream image program will let you properly view the image in order to match properly. There's a reason we've only ever featured half of any historical stereoscope shot. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.3% of all
FPs09:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist per above. The original FP falls way short of modern resolution requirements, so reverting the new upload will not address the reasons for delisting.
MER-C17:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2019 at 22:54:25 (UTC)
Reason
Quite simply, they aren't used in articles, and, offhand, I don't see any particularly good place where they could be used: the first two are random collections of images, and the third doesn't have a clear message. The last one might be salvageable. Original nomination was kind of weird, but it was from back in 2007. That said, this was a 22-item set, so that (apparently) 18 images are stable and in use is impressive. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs23:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delist Agree with nom, they are not used in any article, and though nice scans, they do not add EV to hot air balloon since we have much better photographs of those.
Mattximus (
talk)
13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry but we don't "have much better photographs of those" - these images show the pioneers, and photography wasn't yet invented at the time of these balloons / balloonists !!! ;-) --
Janke |
Talk19:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
No consensus to delist the above two featured pictures. As the images are still used (were added back in an article more than seven days), it can retain that status.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 11:15:49 (UTC)
Reason
The picture used on the subject's article
was changed in 2016, for the current version which has brighter looking blues. The proposed replacement was uploaded by
Pimbrils with the comment "Better version frorm
[5], with slight color adjustment". I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, so will leave it to the community to assess which one is better, and we can retain that as FP and use it in all the affected articles. Thanks —
Amakuru (
talk)
11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Revert to Original - Honestly, these "slight colour adjustment"s to paintings never seem to care much about how they actually look. They're being presented as an example of her art, not just as a representation of her; we should be as close to the art as possible. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.9% of all
FPs16:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Proposed Replacement. I actually like the proposed replacement, the color adjustment seem to be slight and given more texture to the painting.
Gnosis (
talk)
20:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2019 at 09:32:25 (UTC)
N.B. I know this is big, but I'd suggest we just run this as "Does anyone think these are good enough to put these in articles?", since they auto-delist if not in use. This is to help the cleanup on
WT:FPC.
Combined because of similar reasoning. All are unused images by
Fir0002. For ca. 2006, they're quite good, but they're A. unused in articles. B. Kind of low resolution by modern standards, and C. That GDFL/CC-NC cross that, while I don't really want to delist over as a sole reason as I understand the motivation, would never pass nowadays. With all three of these the case, we may as well delist. Fir left in 2013, and hasn't been on except to update the contact information on his user page since.
Delist - For anyone not in the know, one of the requirements of GDFL is that the reuser must copy the full text of
the license every time they use the work. That's because GDFL was designed for software, where that's no big deal, and not for images. That makes these effectively commercially non-free in any medium outside the internet. For that reason, these photos would not
even be allowed for upload to Commons as of last October. As is fairly well communicated in the
attached custom user template, this amounts to "call me and we'll talk about payment". If a worst case scenario, this type of licensing can amount to baiting for careless reusers, to set them up for copyright trolling, which is part of why Commons depreciated it.
GMGtalk10:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the bundling of this nomination - not all of these images are obvious delists. I recommend the nominator withdraw this and nominate the images for delisting individually. To wit:
Peach: just removed, not replaced with anything. Could reinsert, I guess.
Mammatus cloud: again, I'm surprised at the low quality of images in the article. In fact, this might even be the best image we have of this phenomena.
I agree with adding back photos of
Ulysses butterfly and
Mammatus cloud into the articles (I agree with MER-C's comments, above, on these two photos). I am neutral on adding back the White peach photo (BTW there is no photo of a whole peach, not nectarine, in the
peach article).
Bammesk (
talk)
01:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)reply
@
MER-C and
Bammesk: Thanks for that. As I said, I think this is a useful exercise in evaluating a set of images with similar problems, but varying mitigating factors, but its success depends on actually saving the ones worth saving. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 7.2% of all
FPs01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)reply