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.
@
MER-C,
Bammesk, and
Hamid Hassani: There's a bug on Wikipedia (that has been known for over a decade now) that PNGs are scaled to thumbnail by an algorithm that makes them rather soft and blurry. Compare the thumbnails, not the full-size image, and it's exceptionally clear around the braiding and hair.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2023 at 02:18:58 (UTC)
Current FP, lower resolution, by Google Art ProjectProposed replacement, higher resolution, by
National Museum, Warsaw
Reason
The current FP is no longer used in any articles. It has been replaced with a higher resolution version published by the museum that houses the painting, the
National Museum in Warsaw.
Simple housekeepping:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/C/2022 E3 (ZTF) was run when only a PNG existed; due to the bugs of Wikipedia's handling of PNGs, it's been universally replaced with JPEGs. By bot, to make it more confusing replacement
Comment - I'm not sure about that. Is this new mosaic a real image? I may be wrong about this, but I feel like the details and edges of the boulders look suspiciously smooth and rounded, as if they are rendered, and the shadows at the right edge of the asteroid look strangely long even though they're pointed toward the direction of illumination. There's no opposition effect (brightening towards direction of illumination) in this new mosaic unlike the previous one, so it looks rather unnatural. The new mosaic's description doesn't explain the image in enough detail, so I have no idea how it was made or processed.
Nrco0e (
talk)
01:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a mosaic, so it's probably a composite, and that means it might have variations in shadow, brightness, or some areas stretched a bit to change perspective. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.6% of all
FPs.04:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I will admit I'm finding it difficult to line the images up. If they show different sides of the asteroid, I'm not sure this is a replace situation, just an add an addition. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.6% of all
FPs.02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Comparing the two, the candidate (Bastei) has softer and more even lighting, which I prefer. The second (...img04.jpg) seems to have a bit aggressive local contrast. Composition is more balanced in my opinion, too. Resolution is about 40.5 MP vs 36 MP, which is a very slight 11% more. --
Lion-hearted85 (
talk)
11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2023 at 08:41:25 (UTC)
a suitable caption for the image
Reason
Okay. First of all, a version of this with lower pixel size, but far more detail exists:
File:Charles Darwin by Elliott & Fry, 1874.png. It's restored well, but the Library of Congress version is degraded, and that's... basically a fundamental obstacle.
It's also questionably dated:
Harvard says 1874,
this says c. 1880. This is kind of a problem when one of the big draws of it was having a date nearer certain books' publication. It was put in
Rotogravure as an example. There's no source for it being a rotogravure. It has contrast issues: His face and hair blend into the background, and that's not really an issue in the original. I think we can have multiple FPs of Darwin. Having a frontal portrait, an early portrait - there's many valuable options. However, they need to be the best copy of the image we have at the minimum, and that's not what we have now.
Although this was good for 2011, it hasn't held up. I've uploaded
File:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, British Museum, version 1 (cropped).jpg, which is from the British Museum (more reputable colours) and of significant enough resolution to see the grain of the paper. It also shows correctly that this was a diptych. Unfortunately, that copy has some dirt and muck, so I don't think a D&R is feasible here.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2023 at 21:39:00 (UTC)
A photo-portrait of Abraham Lincoln.
Reason
This photo has been superseded by
Abraham_Lincoln_O-77_matte_collodion_print.jpg. A lot of details, such as wrinkles on Abe's face, are missing. There is even a signature on the photograph.
Delist - Gosh, it's amazing how busy FP was back in those days. Between the weird white sliver, false copyright claim (this sure as heck wasn't taken in 1900), and quality of the reproduction, this doesn't pass muster anymore. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delist per nom. Also fails the "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height" criterion. It's probably not the only Zion Narrows pic available. GeraldWL07:03, 14 October 2023 (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.
@
MER-C,
Bammesk, and
Hamid Hassani: There's a bug on Wikipedia (that has been known for over a decade now) that PNGs are scaled to thumbnail by an algorithm that makes them rather soft and blurry. Compare the thumbnails, not the full-size image, and it's exceptionally clear around the braiding and hair.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2023 at 02:18:58 (UTC)
Current FP, lower resolution, by Google Art ProjectProposed replacement, higher resolution, by
National Museum, Warsaw
Reason
The current FP is no longer used in any articles. It has been replaced with a higher resolution version published by the museum that houses the painting, the
National Museum in Warsaw.
Simple housekeepping:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/C/2022 E3 (ZTF) was run when only a PNG existed; due to the bugs of Wikipedia's handling of PNGs, it's been universally replaced with JPEGs. By bot, to make it more confusing replacement
Comment - I'm not sure about that. Is this new mosaic a real image? I may be wrong about this, but I feel like the details and edges of the boulders look suspiciously smooth and rounded, as if they are rendered, and the shadows at the right edge of the asteroid look strangely long even though they're pointed toward the direction of illumination. There's no opposition effect (brightening towards direction of illumination) in this new mosaic unlike the previous one, so it looks rather unnatural. The new mosaic's description doesn't explain the image in enough detail, so I have no idea how it was made or processed.
Nrco0e (
talk)
01:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a mosaic, so it's probably a composite, and that means it might have variations in shadow, brightness, or some areas stretched a bit to change perspective. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.6% of all
FPs.04:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I will admit I'm finding it difficult to line the images up. If they show different sides of the asteroid, I'm not sure this is a replace situation, just an add an addition. Adam Cuerden(
talk)Has about 8.6% of all
FPs.02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep – Comparing the two, the candidate (Bastei) has softer and more even lighting, which I prefer. The second (...img04.jpg) seems to have a bit aggressive local contrast. Composition is more balanced in my opinion, too. Resolution is about 40.5 MP vs 36 MP, which is a very slight 11% more. --
Lion-hearted85 (
talk)
11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2023 at 08:41:25 (UTC)
a suitable caption for the image
Reason
Okay. First of all, a version of this with lower pixel size, but far more detail exists:
File:Charles Darwin by Elliott & Fry, 1874.png. It's restored well, but the Library of Congress version is degraded, and that's... basically a fundamental obstacle.
It's also questionably dated:
Harvard says 1874,
this says c. 1880. This is kind of a problem when one of the big draws of it was having a date nearer certain books' publication. It was put in
Rotogravure as an example. There's no source for it being a rotogravure. It has contrast issues: His face and hair blend into the background, and that's not really an issue in the original. I think we can have multiple FPs of Darwin. Having a frontal portrait, an early portrait - there's many valuable options. However, they need to be the best copy of the image we have at the minimum, and that's not what we have now.
Although this was good for 2011, it hasn't held up. I've uploaded
File:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, British Museum, version 1 (cropped).jpg, which is from the British Museum (more reputable colours) and of significant enough resolution to see the grain of the paper. It also shows correctly that this was a diptych. Unfortunately, that copy has some dirt and muck, so I don't think a D&R is feasible here.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2023 at 21:39:00 (UTC)
A photo-portrait of Abraham Lincoln.
Reason
This photo has been superseded by
Abraham_Lincoln_O-77_matte_collodion_print.jpg. A lot of details, such as wrinkles on Abe's face, are missing. There is even a signature on the photograph.
Delist - Gosh, it's amazing how busy FP was back in those days. Between the weird white sliver, false copyright claim (this sure as heck wasn't taken in 1900), and quality of the reproduction, this doesn't pass muster anymore. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk)
09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delist per nom. Also fails the "minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height" criterion. It's probably not the only Zion Narrows pic available. GeraldWL07:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply