Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2012

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

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015
2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 - 2022 - 2023 - 2024 - 2025

Retained

Chlorine

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2012 at 00:30:40 (UTC)

Reason: Unused, replaced by File:Liquid chlorine.jpg and File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg, both of which depict the element better IMO.
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorine
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is always worth checking out any rationale when an image is removed from an article. In particular, it is commonplace for editors to have some pride over the images that they have taken the time to acquire. Article illustration quality can, and does suffer for it, so keep an eye out. Here is the relevant diff for this image. It is important to note that the replacement image was created by materialscientist. I'm personally neutral in this particular case, the replacement is better at thumb size at least. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I prefer the replacement as well (for its EV). Artistically, the current FP is pretty nice but... without as much EV it doesn't meet the FP criteria. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically well done, much better than the other two pictures: illustrates the subject just as well, does not contain distracting elements, and is properly exposed. Clegs (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against the technical aspects, but EV. An image not used anywhere has no EV, by FP definition. Both images in the article now, though technically inferior as pictures, have higher EV, and the current image cannot be inserted willy-nilly when the subject is usually a gas (i.e. it's liquid form is not as common). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Alchemist to weigh in here. I'd like to see what he says about the relative value of these three photographs. Chick Bowen 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What we are see at the other two images? What is relevant? My opinion: we must see a yellow liquid: chlorine. The current FP image has the best quality and the best description! It shows us an valued educational sample! This image: File:Liquid chlorine.jpg has the false color for the liq. chlorine: grey-yellow, and low description. This image: File:Liquid chlorine in flask.jpg has a very bad quality. It is very noisy, disturbing background and has a very low description. I have no problems if my image isn't more an FP Image, but the comparison with the other two images isn't a comparison for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the image certainly needs to be in an article. Preferably chlorine. If it can be kept in the chlorine article stably, then I'll withdraw. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I included it in the chlorine article again. Hope for a longer time. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as it's stable in the article, per Alchemist. Chick Bowen 03:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Brackenheim (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clegs --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currently used in chlorine, where it clearly has some use and value. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think is better than the other two images, and therefore it shouldn't have been replaced in the article in the first place. --Elekhh (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows something different from the other two images. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2012 at 11:27:19 (UTC)

Reason: Borderline resolution, low EV as it has been replaced in Hydrogen and is now found only in one article. At the nomination, it was said to be in the hydrogen article at the time. However, the stable version at the time did not include the image; it may never have been included.
Articles this image appears in: Gas-discharge lamp
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Five Noble Gases
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added the picture of nitrogen to the delist nomination as well. The image was used in the nitrogen article at the time of the nomination, but it is not now. I have not been able to find when it was removed. Currently used to lesser EV in Gas-discharge lamp and Ionized-air glow Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The resolution is sufficient for that sort of things as there are no small details to watch. Many similar images in Gas-discharge_lamp#Color are also FPs and I don't know why the image lessens EV since both Gas-discharge lamp and Ionized-air glow are exactly what is expected to show. Brandmeister t 23:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both have high EV on the articles they are included in. We shouldn't exclude them because they are not included in the article about the element --Guerillero | My Talk 20:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the images, but a using in the article: Gas-discharge lamp is a false using, because they aren't gas discarge tubes. They are simply "tubes" filled with low pressure gas inside, the main: without electrodes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should they be removed from that article? J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think yes. We have images from real gas discharge tubes. Take a look here: and here: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've removed the images from the gas discharge lamp article. This leaves the hydrogen image with no articles in which it is used and the nitrogen only used in Ionized-air glow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can plainly see an electrode wire wrapped around the tube. How *else* would you get these gasses to glow? It's a gas discharge. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the true definition of a gas discharge tube? I think the electrodes must be inside installed not only outside wrapped?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because someone switched it out of an article for an inferior picture that they took is no reason to remove its FP status. Clegs (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EV is an issue. An image without an article has 0 EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or has been needlessly removed from an article. If that's your only hang-up, be bold and use it in an article somewhere. Clegs (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's an "EV"? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedic Value. --jjron (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 00:06:29 (UTC)

Reason: This really kills me (I think we need more Indonesia-related FPs), but the image has been replaced by other, more encyclopedic images and is not used anymore. The resolution is also on the low side.
Articles this image appears in: N/A
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Playing gamelan
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I don't know much about this topic, and expect you are far better informed, so I'll ask: is there really no place or no use for this in the Gamelan article anymore? I can't find when it was removed, but I do note that the Gamelan article is riddled with vandalism. --jjron (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Here's the unexplained removal --jjron (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Would it have a place in Gamelan gender wayang? --jjron (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this should be re-added to the Gamelan article. (And as such I vote for Keep, even if I have to put it back in myself!) The image is indeed *just* on the right side of the resolution guideline, but I don't really feel it hurts it (as much as, say, the blurry hammer!). Nik thestoned

As noted in the original nomination by the only oppose voter, gamelan is not something one plays alone. It is a set, including gongs, instruments like xylophones, and other instruments which sadly I forget the name of. Any pictures showing only a single player have lower EV than set pictures. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but this image appears to be of a far higher quality than those remaining. Could they not both be in place? Maybe in the "Influence on Western music" section, what with it being in Australia. (Tenuous connection there, I realise!) Nik thestoned 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should've put @jjron in front of that...
@jjron: Without knowing if there was a wayang performance, no. I've put it in Gendér though, as that is the instrument he is playing.

@Nik: Theoretically I could get better pictures, if I had the time to go down to the sultan's palace (lighting would be an issue though). I think having the image in gendér is good, but I'm not sure if the EV is high enough, especially with the round mallet so motion blurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of Indonesia-related FPs (and content in general) I'd say this still meets the EV in this area (given it's now in use)... As in, the value is higher if the images subject is barely represented, right? Nik thestoned 09:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better than none, yes. If there is such a thing as a weak delist, that's where I am now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly well above resolution requirements and as mentioned above we don't many (if any) other Indonesian FPs and to me the playing of the particular instrument would meet EV requirements --Fir0002 04:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Spadefish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 18:39:39 (UTC)

Reason

Bad flash highlights (blown areas on both fish)
Awkward crop (too much space above and below, hanging tail on right edge, end of subject fish's tail cut off.
~~Chromatic abberation around head of background fish~~
Artifacting, either from jpg compression or too much NR, under head of background fish

~~#Possibly should not have passed original nom, as I count 5 Supports and 3 opposes (not a 2/3 majority).~~

Articles this image appears in: Atlantic Spadefish
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atlantic Spadefish.jpg
Nominator: Clegs (talk)

Delist — Clegs (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have notified the original nominator. Creator is not on WP. Clegs (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could read the closing statement [1] and/or note that one of the opposes was specific to the original. I suggest striking that part of your opening statement. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the composition/crop is quite charming, and while this isn't the most technically super-awesome picture on Wikipedia (not that I'm buying your overexposure argument- these are scaley shiny fish, and the overexposed areas are small) there is a good amount of EV here. As PLW points out, the original closure looks sound. Note that I voted twice, once in opposition to the original, once in support of this version; only two vote in opposition to the either (with one in opposition to only the original), while two support either, and three (one being the nominator) support only the edit. It's five for and two against the edit, which is more than two thirds in support. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. My embarrassment at this being on the front page a couple days ago remains. If a picture with this much artifacting came through today, we would shoot it down in flames. Clegs (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I'm not really sure of your use of the word "artefacting" - normally, we use that to refer to jpeg artefacts, which look different from what I can find in this picture, and JPEG quality here is a respectable 93%. In fact, I now think that all of your remaining claims about image quality are false: (1) I can't see any traces of denoising in the original, and there was none done in the edit. (2) I can see no chromatic aberration, although, if present, it is now trivial to fix. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't see the purple fringing all across the front of the second fish? Clegs (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I'll apply the filter, but I still mostly see a purple and yellow fish swimming behind. In a scene like this, genuine CA would usually show up in more than one place. ~~Uploading...~~ Done. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JJ Harrison (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per J Milburn. Dusty777 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Julia\^talk 10:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2012 at 00:15:52 (UTC)

Reason: Image has been universally superceded by File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist and replace — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist and replace~~ One has to wonder a little about the difference in saturation, and comment in passing on this being yet another image that Google have made too dark, but if we're going to keep either of them, it clearly should be the high resolution one. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC) I'm going to suspend my vote for the moment to see what emerges from discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace per above comments. Clegs (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist but do not replace. Google's version is really dark. The Prado's version isn't nearly as dark. Makeemlighter (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which, if any, is an accurrate reproduction? Only an accurate reporoduction should be FP regardless of resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I think the sad truth is that we've established no reliable criteria by which to assess which reproduction is accurate, or to what extent. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accuracy is not quite the right word in my view. This painting is photographed accurately, but it is not lit properly. It's not hard to tell: there are details visible in other versions that aren't in this one. Chick Bowen 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not replace. This is much too dark. The content of the paintings on the back wall should be visible; you can see that in almost any reproduction. Here they're just brown squares. I still do not understand the internet's adoration for Google Art: ridiculously high resolution is useless if the subject is poorly lit. Chick Bowen 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The google reproduction is provided by the museums and it's safe to assume these new digitizations are done as accurately as possible. The darkness of the photograph is VERY likely accurately reflecting the darkness of the painting. The original is likely been altered with like Photoshop to increase the brightness which would be INACCURATE to the original painting. In the past we've relied upon the faithfulness of the museums reproductions over any other, they shoot them in proper studio environment with high quality cameras and experienced professionals. So for my two cents, I will assume the painting is actually that dark which isn't unthinkable that it would be. So... Delist and Replace for me. — raeky t 02:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The old photo was also provided by the museum. Why should we assume this one is more accurate? (Whatever that might mean anyway--the dynamic range of the eye is greater than that of a photograph, so there's no way a reproduction can reproduce what the painting looks like to someone standing in front of it.) Since various blemishes and scratches are visible on the old one, I believe, on the contrary, that this one was shot with less light on purpose, to make it look better. Chick Bowen 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Neutrality^talk 09:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been noticing for a while now that high resolution images from museums are routinely on the dark side. Check out the Rokeby Venus above for another example. I would be astonished if these paintings were actually that dark under normal lighting conditions. Kaldari (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, and I believe that it's done to minimize the appearance of craquelure, which would otherwise be very prominent at high resolution. Chick Bowen 05:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not replace Per chick, I think that the Google reproduction is far far too dark. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Julia\^talk 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original kept as FP, not replaced. Only one voter stated a preference for delisting without replacing. For those who voted "delist and replace", it is not clear whether that applies to delisting as well, if a replacement is not made. If opinion is such that the original should be delisted, a separate nomination can determine that. Julia\^talk 10:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna Park Melbourne scenic railway.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2012 at 01:08:55 (UTC)

Reason: Shadows are terrible, really detract from the image
Articles this image appears in: Roller coaster, Luna Park, Melbourne, +2
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Scenic railway
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't think the EV is as high as it could be. There's no sense of height or speed, and according to the article this is 1 of 2 roller coasters that require a brakeman to stand in the middle of the train while in operation. You can barely make out the guy here. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marbled rock crab

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2012 at 16:21:07 (UTC)

Reason: Not used in any articles. Marbled rock crab already has a different FP of this species and this photo doesn't really show anything different than the existing one to warrant its inclusion in the article.
Articles this image appears in: Pachygrapsus marmoratus
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marbled rock crab male
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist — —howcheng {chat} 16:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Prefer current infobox image, background is less distracting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At nomination time in article was used two pictures (restored now). Also this is a best photo of male marbled rock crab. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how do you tell the difference from above? If one FP is male and the other is female, we definitely need to keep both. Clegs (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back side of a female almost square, male a bit more triangular -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my uneducated eyes, they look the same. Others' thoughts? Clegs (talk)

I think I see it. The bottom end of the male is slightly more angular. Also, the image has been removed again. —howcheng {chat} 22:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, but it's always the same editor, and he seems to have a theme about removing relevant images, see [2]. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rule against two of the same species; if they are indeed one of each gender, there's definitely EV. No reason to punish the picture for one user's personal edit war. Clegs (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that by definition, an FP must be included in an article. For me, this is purely a procedural nomination. No article = no star. —howcheng {chat} 23:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really sure how we should handle nominations where FP/no FP hinges on an edit war where the opposing side consists of a single editor (=potential minority position). That said, George could probably turn this into a non-issue by contributing two short paragraphs of relevant text to the article. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The partial camouflage here brings valuable EV. NauticaShad es 21:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delisting an unused image is really procedural, and if a home can't be found for it that it has EV for, then it would need delisted and probably no vote is necessary to do it... Although I do see this editor as being maybe edit-warish. Probably wouldn't hurt anything to postpone the delisting for a month and give the article's talk page time to discuss the relevance of having both sexes pictured. That way all interested editors for that article will have plenty of time to weigh in on keeping the image or not and we won't be delisting it over one editors wishes to remove it from the article. So Postpone one month and discuss on article's talk page is my "vote" lol. ;-) — raeky t 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this needs to be clarified in article talk space. But a procedural point: the reason why we insist on a vote even for an obvious delist due to non-usage is precisely to reveal issues like this, in which an image has been removed for less-than-stellar reasons. Chick Bowen 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for the removal of the picture from the article are not valid. I have read through all the image guidelines/essays ETC... and I cannot find a valid reason for the removal of the picture from the article. Dusty777 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't do anything about that here. Get it to stick in the article and we can close this. —howcheng {chat} 17:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update/Question: I've tried to add it to the article. Removed by User:Stemonitis. Added it again, and tried to discuss with him that consensus is the picture adds value to the article. He replied vehemently, both on my talk and the article talk, that it did not and he did not want it there and removed the picture again. He insists it's not an edit war or WP:OWN, he's just trying to make sure WP has the best content possible and the picture adds nothing so he's not going to let it in the article. Sounds like edit warring and WP:OWN to me. What's the next step? AN/I? Never had to deal with this before. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this section on the FPC talk page to continue the discussion. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 09:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Added after the discussion should have been closed.) Can we stop this discussion here? It's not helping. A reasoned discussion, focussing on the article, not the picture, needs to be had on the article talk page. Once a conslusion has been reached there, we can have this discussion. Here is not the place for a "should it, shouldn't it" concerning whether the image should be in the article- once that has been decided through the proper procedure, this discussion can go ahead, and it will no doubt be a simple one. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- No consensus; Keep without prejudice against a renom. There's a discussion on the article's talk page to determine this image's usage on that page; depending on its results I may renom the image for delisting. I'm closing this because it's been sitting for several days; if anyone feels I should have left it open, feel free to revert me. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 07:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus clouds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 18:57:13 (UTC)

Reason: Poor image quality.
Articles this image appears in: Cirrus cloud, List of cloud types, International Cloud Atlas
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cirrus Field
Nominator: Julia\^talk

Delist — Julia\^talk 18:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would support a delist and replace if someone makes a better version. Pine^(talk) 19:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the quality of this photo is sufficient to keep it at the level of a featured picture. I also believe the image deserves to stay as a featured picture due to the many interlaced cirrus clouds that illustrate the thinness of this type of cloud and how they can form multiple layers in the sky. Bbourgeois^(talk) 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Not a bad photo but I'm a proponent of the idea that FP's are not there for life, and when the quality falls below expectations, they're fair game for delisting. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delist. Great EV, but quality is quite marginal. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --jjron (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2012 at 17:55:07 (UTC)

Reason: Procedural nomination. Was removed from article for being the wrong species
Articles this image appears in: None (was: Melo aethiopica)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist — —howcheng {chat} 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not necessarily procedural depending on (a) how sure are we it is misidentified, and (b) if it is incorrect, can we correctly identify it and thus add it to an appropriate article? If we can't definitely ID it, then obviously agree with delist on EV grounds. I'm not sure the creator is particularly active on enwiki, but pretty sure he's quite active on Commons; either way he doesn't look to have been notified of any issue. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, forgot that step. Notified now. —howcheng {chat} 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: On the description page I wrote:

"Difference of M. aethiopica to M. broderipii: In Melo aethiopica the protoconch doesn't surmount the last whorl or only marginally, in Melo broderipii [3] it does significantly." In the depicted specimen the last whorl does surmount only marginally, and so it is aethiopica in my opinion. Which species is it in your opinion and which character(s) is it based upon? I miss both in the delisting article, the name of an alternative species and the character(s), which lead to it, and the characters, which exclude M. aethiopica. I would be glad, if you could tell me something about the correct determination. --Llez (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Invertzoo is the one who removed it from the article. Please talk to her. —howcheng {chat} 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info I made the following note on Invertzoo's talk page:

There is a delisting-discussion caused by your removing of a picture of Melo aethiopica, see [4]. I please you to explain the reasons, why you removed it, especially the characters, your decision is based on. As far as I know, the only character is the protonch (and according to this it is a aethiopica; see also the link to M. broderipii on the description page of the picture of M. aethiopica), all others (shell form, colour and so on are variable and/or depending of age) are not suited for exact determination. If it is neither aethiopica nor broderipii, what do you think it is? By the way, we had a similar discussion on Commons about the same subject, and you can see the result: It is still listed as aethiopica. Please anwer on the page (see above), where the delisting is discussed. Greetings --Llez (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello. Sorry to have caused a problem with this. I myself am not an expert on the family Volutidae and the genus Melo, and my decision on this species was based on advice from an editor who has since left Wikipedia, User:MerlinCharon.

[5] At the time I was convinced by MerlinCharon's argument, but of course my decision could have been incorrect. I would guess that only an expert on the genus could give an expert opinion, and even then it's hard to ID species from a photo rather than the shell itself. However, since this is a very fine photo and since it's unlikely that anyone looking at the photo could be absolutely certain of the species on this shell either way, I would be perfectly happy to see it go back in the article, so feel free to restore it. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we adding it back into the article? --jjron (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the article has any room for more pictures. It's a one-line stub with a huge infobox and 3 pictures already. —howcheng {chat} 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair call. Unless someone can sort out the usage, preferably by expanding the article, I'm going have to support the delist. FWIW, why was this issue so happily ignored during the original nom - the 'article' was already littered with images then. --jjron (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not used in an article... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So....? -jjron (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That should be an automatic delist, then. No article = no star. And although Invertzoo says she's fine with putting it back in, she also concedes that the photo may not actually depict the species in question, so that's two strikes against it. —howcheng {chat} 16:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I don't want to get yelled at again for making a common-sense decision! Pretty clear delist as far as I'm concerned, but there aren't 5 delist votes. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could vote and let someone else close it. :) —howcheng {chat} 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well given it has the big "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." thing up I guess no one else can vote now anyway. And if no one's willing to delist without the five votes for fear of a dressing down, maybe it needs to be renominated based on its non-usage now being apparently locked in? --jjron (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Will do. —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No quorum. Reopened at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg 2 —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One flying over Mt. Rushmore

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2012 at 18:36:56 (UTC)

Reason: Grainy not the best composition, one of the heads isnt even visible, wouldn't pass today
Articles this image appears in: Links to the article/s that use this image
Previous nomination/s: Link/s to the image's original FPC nomination, and any previous delist noms
Nominator: Thanks, Hadseys (talk)

Delist — Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well I can see four heads, though admittedly one is somewhat obscured. Regardless, I think the EV is really for Air Force One, and I like the imagery of it flying over an iconic American landscape, particularly the one with the giant carved heads of the bestest American presidents. It's also used in several other articles. Would it pass today? Probably not, based on the technical quality, but I as I've said many times, I'm not one for just delisting anything that wouldn't pass today. And for mine, the fact that it's still the lead image in Air Force One eight years after its FP promotion, and is also still prominent in Mount Rushmore and other articles, speaks volumes for its EV. --jjron (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not only is it grainy and overexposed, but it's a low-quality scan with tons of dust on it. I love the shot, but it's a poor quality image. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per jjron. Dusty777 19:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Objective assessment as to quality (per nom/FPC criteria) trumps sentimentality. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulmonata

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2012 at 16:42:43 (UTC)

Reason: Procedural nomination. Image was removed from article for the reason "non-pulmonata pictured and with not precisely drawn species".
Articles this image appears in: none (was: Pulmonata)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpg
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist — —howcheng {chat} 16:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See File:Pulmonata legend.jpg.--Citron (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not in any articles right now, and thus by definition cannot be a FP. You should talk to User:Snek01, who removed it from the article. —howcheng {chat} 02:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You also could talk him. I've never nominated this image.--Citron (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist regardless of article status. Low EV - old image with imprecisely sketched beasties, all at very low individual resolutions, and including various non-pulmonates. Image quality not that good. Small size for what we tend to be used to for these types of reproductions; it may be acceptable if it was a single picture, but not a collage type image. Might be okay as a Commons 'pretty picture', but too many shortcomings for the 'pedia. --jjron (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I really, really like this sort of picture, to the extent that I would happily hang something like this on my wall. I have a mug with a similar picture of poisonous mushrooms. However, I have to agree with Jjron that this is not the most encyclopedically useful picture, short of illustrating an artistic style or the work of a particular author. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's back in the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus Field

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2012 at 12:42:30 (UTC)

Reason: Low quality, Small size (336 KB), Unsuccessful Candidacy in Commons
Articles this image appears in: Cirrus cloud
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cirrus Field
Nominator: Kasir ^talk

Delist — Kasir ^talk 12:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is representative for this type of cloud. Besides, it was delist candidate about one month ago and the result was: KEEP. Featured picture candidates/delist/Cirrus clouds--Monfie (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I have trouble understanding why you would want to delist a picture that you wanted to promote just yesterday! Needless to say that all of us (two above users + me) come from the Persian Wikipedia and all of these games originate from there (FP nomination page). I think this issue—deciding about if this image is a featured one here or not—should be left for editors of the English Wikipedia rather than Persian Wikipedia! so I propose a Speedy Keep. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe you shouldn't be voting, it's rather odd that you choose to vote. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I think this is showing its age, and would never be promoted nowadays. Blown highlights, overprocessing, and small size (for a landscape especially!). --99of9 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Very replaceable and so subpar. Julia\^talk 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, the quality is not what we would expect today, but I see no reason for its delisting. Some of these featured pictures should be kept for historical purposes, to show how featured pictures have progressed over time. Dusty777 02:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I voted after this had run out of time. *Delist, per Julia. I find the claim that "some of these featured pictures should be kept for historical purposes" absolutely ludicrous. Should we do the same thing with featured articles? J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles are a little different then pictures. Articles have to put up with vandalism, the listing of incorrect information, vandalism, and link rot. Pictures never change. What I really should have said, is pictures nominated from a few years ago, should not be judged by today's standards. Dusty777 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, I ask whether you would say the same thing about a featured article? "Ok, so it's not good enough to pass today, but it did pass years ago and hasn't changed much. I guess we'll just ignore the fact that the criteria have changed." That's ridiculous. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not keep a museum of how an encyclopedia was written several years ago... J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delist. Perhaps worth re-evaluating in 6+ months. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai with sword

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2012 at 16:43:15 (UTC)

Reason: When originally nominated, it was included in both Samurai and Sword, but today it belongs to neither of those. In Samurai, it was in the Weapons section, but has been replaced by File:Old Japanese military paraphernalia.jpg, another FP (which is more appropriate IMHO). In Sword, it was removed in November 2010, only three months after promotion.
Articles this image appears in: Aikido techniques, Conservation Techniques for Cultural Properties
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Samurai with sword
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist — —howcheng {chat} 16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems rather formal, I've readded it back to Samurai to the section of corresponding time period. Brandmeister^talk 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the argument is that it's not used, then clearly it being in Aikido techniques rules that out, and it seems to hold at least a decent amount of EV for Aikido techniques, the argument isn't its quality? I'm slightly confused. We delist featured pictures if they're not in use anymore at all, not because their original usage at nomination has been replaced. So long as it's providing EV to an article (I wouldn't really say it's providing much in the list at Conservation Techniques for Cultural Properties but it's decent for Aikido techniques and with the readdition (if it sticks) at Samurai means it shouldn't be delisted on non-use grounds. — raeky t 18:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think the EV at Aikido was particularly high. I'm certainly not going to write a POTD for it based on that article. —howcheng {chat} 23:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone would loose any sleep if you skipped the POTD for this image, there's such a massive backlog anyway. — raeky t 02:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image seems clearly to have more EV than some of the images that have replaced it, since it shows the armor as used, rather than in a display case in a museum. Since it is in use (even if not used ideally), it does not fail the procedural requirements. So I don't see the problem. As for POTD, by long tradition that is Howcheng's decision, and if he does not feel it merits inclusion, so be it: it should still remain featured. Chick Bowen 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as Chick Bowen Alborzagros (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Cal Engime (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Mussolini

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2012 at 11:41:52 (UTC)

File:Hitlermusso2 edit.jpg

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Reason: Too small even by previous standards.
Articles this image appears in: Adolf Hitler and others
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hitler and Mussolini
Nominator: Brandmeister^talk

Delist — Brandmeister^talk 11:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we maybe find a higher resolution version to replace this one? The picture has excellent EV... Seems a shame to have to delist it. Dusty777 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched before nominating, but failed to find one. Brandmeister^talk 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Light cropping and the removal of the "LVCE" watermark would improve this image. However, even then, too small. A great image, but not really FP material. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This nomination is factually flawed; the sole reason given for delisting is wrong. Before the recent increase in minimum resolution, this file met (and exceeded) the criteria. We agreed that a result of the amendment wouldn't be delisting things that previously satisfied the minimum requirement. Julia\^talk 23:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julia - Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Speedy Keep per Julia. Even if it was nominated today, it should still pass, seeing as it is a historical image with incredible EV. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure if it would pass today, considering the size requirements have gone up, but it would be interesting to see the result of such a nomination. Dusty777 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep till a better replace ever available. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Julia and Jkadavoor. Dusty777 01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Julia and Jkadavoor. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For such a historically important image I would never support delisting it unless a higher superior image existed for us to use. — raeky t 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JKadavoor. Strong EV. Shivashree (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless a higher resolution image is available. Historical image with great EV. EngineerFromVega ^★ 06:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooded Plover

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2012 at 20:29:36 (UTC)

Reason: Picture has a "bleached" look-n-feel from overexposure leading to little contrast. Cropping gives off-balance feel to composition.
Articles this image appears in: there are many
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Thinornis rubricollis Bruny Island.jpg
Nominator: Jason Quinn (talk)

Delist — Jason Quinn (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The exposure looks good to me--the detail in the head and eye would be lost if it were darker. There isn't much color in the background, which gives it colorless feel overall, but for me that just makes the distinctive red eye and beak stand out more. I didn't vote on this picture when it came up originally but I quite like it. Chick Bowen 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I might oppose if it were nominated today due to the problems mentioned, but they're not bad enough to delist it IMO. In general, relatively recent FPs should not be delisted unless a major oversight was made in the original nomination or if the EV disappears. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jee. The existence of another FP certainly reduces EV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because the other featured picture File:Thinornis rubricollis - Orford.jpg seems far better. Jkadavoor (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care I did do better later. I prefer not to do delist and replaces when nominating as it is tough to get a quorum. But it isn't over exposed. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Julia\^talk 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced

USS Arizona after attack on Pearl Harbor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 18:57:33 (UTC)

Reason: To be replaced with this candidate, which has better quality.
Articles this image appears in: Attack on Pearl Harbor, USS Arizona Memorial, Maritime history, Equipment losses in World War II, Infamy Speech, Pacific War
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Arizona during attack on Pearl Harbor
Nominator: ■ MMXX ^talk

Delist — ■ MMXX ^talk 18:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should really have been a delist/replace candidate. If the other passes, this should be delisted by default. J Milburn (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. --jjron (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist should the improved version be promoted. O.J. (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace with new restored image. Clegs (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:The USS Arizona (BB-39) burning after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA 195617 - Edit.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Arizona after attack on Pearl Harbor. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

Arrrr!

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:52:13 (UTC)

Reason: As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted. Two other pictures by this editor, File:Mad scientist.svg and File:Villainc.svg, have also been delisted previously.
Articles this image appears in: Eyepatch Piracy Pirates in popular culture
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pirate
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good depiction of "pirates in popular culture", a subject that is open to artistic interpretation. I don't think a photo would be any more valuable. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that it is not by a notable artist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not being presented as an art form. As such the only criteria it must meet are those of this project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, as this most certainly would not pass today. While I agree with Saffron's claim that this is not being presented as art, I fail to see where this image has any EV- Mahahahaneapneap points to pirates in popular culture, but there, it is merely thrown alongside a list of appearances of pirates in comics and manga. It's not illustrating anything in particular, and the article would be no worse-off without it. J Milburn (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist:Agree with your reasoning, File:Villainc.svg had a similar fate, now these cartoons don't meet today's criterias. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom and per above. Notwithstanding the low ev concerns, there are also more artistically distinctive and detailed images of pirates in popular culture. Spencer^T♦C 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I actually think this has value for showing stereotypical characteristics of a pirate, but it's just not FP level anymore. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I don't really see how this illustrates pirates in popular culture, since this pirate is not taken from popular culture but is rather one person's interpretation of the general traits that pirates in popular culture have. A better reproduction than those we have of one of the Wyeth illustrations from Treasure Island would seem to me more appropriate. Chick Bowen 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per arguments above. Also, I think we need to be a little concerned about circularity with topics like "cultural depictions of". certainly we should exclude done for wiki from that sort of topic.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above arguments. Clegs (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blender house picture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2012 at 12:30:50 (UTC)

Reason: Although the image is admittedly striking, it's EV is fairly low. In the Blender article it is only in a gallery, while in Computer-generated imagery it is next to a paragraph about using software for architectural purposes... which this image would be useless for.
Articles this image appears in: Blender (software), Computer-generated imagery
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ImpressiveBlender3DWork
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Crisco's reasoning. Interestingly, as an aside, we do have high-quality professional productions of material using Blender. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is for the new year. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my extensive reasoning when this went through Picture Peer Review and FPC in early 2008. I think it's a fine image, but unillustrative of Blender. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Usage.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments for keeping. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horse animation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:58:47 (UTC)

An animated horse created by a Wikipedia editor based on photographs by Eadweard Muybridge

Reason: As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted.
Articles this image appears in: Animation, 12 basic principles of animation, and several more.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animhorse.gif, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/animhorse
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the the 2007 delist discussion. --jjron (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Hasn't it already been here several times before? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so what? There's no ban on renominating images for delisting. If you believe the image still meets the criteria, that's fine, but please offer your reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think his point is that no new argument has been made for delisting. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It hasn't been here for four years which is a long time in FPC - things change. Besides which Crisco's reason actually is a new argument. I didn't support it based on that argument, personally I simply still agree with my own reasoning from four years ago, but others may agree with his new point. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right; consensus can change. I was just trying to clarify what I thought TA's point was. I'll meet you halfway with the rest: it's a new argument, but it's not a convincing one. I don't recall any consensus that user-generated art doesn't have enough EV. File:Glass ochem dof2.png, File:Lone House.jpg, File:Glasses 800 edit.png, and File:Terragen render.jpg are all user-generated art. Creating art through software doesn't seem much different from animation. The EV comes from what the image shows, not who made it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        For animation, with a goodly number of professionally drawn cartoons in the public domain, I'd think it is fair to ask for high quality. We don't go adding user created art to postmodernism willy-nilly and then make it featured, do we? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Makeem, I'm not sure if we're meeting halfway, I think we agree; I agree with you re the user generated art thing, and I also don't know of anywhere where a consensus was reached saying it was unfeaturable. I was merely pointing out that it was a new argument re this image, and some others may agree with it (and as I said above, it's not what I've based my delist vote on). --jjron (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We were meeting halfway before I re-wrote my comment and left that part. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; this sort of cartoon is really not representative of the best work of a 2010s encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Best work? Maybe not, but isn't it pretty good as an illustration of animation and rotoscoping? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, maybe not. I think not, but, regardless, an image needs to be "among Wikipedia's best work" to meet the featured picture criteria. This fails. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly not overall best work, but a 2-minute search convinced me it's still one of our better images illustrating animation. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per J Milburn. Spencer^T♦C 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist reluctantly. As with the pirate below, I feel this image still has decent EV, but it too no longer reaches the level of FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Its value seems very narrow to me, since most such cartoonish animations would not be made backwards from a series of photographs like this. It really only illustrates the very specific, almost unique technique that was used to create it. Chick Bowen 04:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree that an example of professional illustration would be superior (even if not artistically, example wise).TCO (Reviews needed) 03:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it makes a good illustration for a couple of those articles, and don't see an issue with the cartoon style. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2012 at 01:52:27 (UTC)

Reason: This would not pass today- it's very small (only just over the minimum) and the technical quality is low. The crop is also unfortunately tight. We have a stronger photo, but this is also far below current standards.
Articles this image appears in: Fauna of Australia, List of sub-national animals, List of symbols of Australian states and territories, Phyllopteryx, Symbols of Victoria (Australia), Syngnathidae
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WeedySeadragon
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Delist — J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Better pics exist of this species. (kinda tangential, but the infobox hurts usage of the photo in article.) TCO (Reviews needed) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Was gonna nom this one myself sometime back but didn't get around to it. I'm not one for blindly applying current expectations to all old FPs, but sadly this one is well below FP standards. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments in favor of keeping. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red-necked Stint

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 02:57:45 (UTC)

Reason: I was lucky, and think this image has been superseded by the image currently nominated for featured status
Articles this image appears in: Swan Bay and Port Phillip Bay Islands Important Bird Area
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Calidris ruficollis 2.jpg
Nominator: JJ Harrison (talk)

Delist — JJ Harrison (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. -jjron (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, assuming the current FPC passes. Nik thestoned 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh as this should be a D&R nom - anything else is messy and whoever originally proposed that it must be this way probably needs to rethink their position. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is mostly reactionary - I would prefer it that any new image is considered on it's own merits. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per JJs. Pteronura brasiliensis 00:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. J Milburn (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Thomas More

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2012 at 22:52:17 (UTC)

Reason: The current FP comes from the the Yorck Project, which is notorious for its bad reproductions, it should be replaced by this Google Art Project file which is superior in both colour correctness and size.
Articles this image appears in: several
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sir Thomas More
Nominator: P. S. Burton (talk)

Delist — P. S. Burton (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Portrait of Thomas More by Hans Holbein d. J. in the Frick Colllection.jpg
Delist, though I'd like the mentioned replacement to go through FPC process independent of this delist nom. Nik thestoned 15:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. I assume you intend to nominate the other, or was this meant to be a delist/replace nomination? J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and Replace with the Google art file. Clegs (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Pine^talk 10:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Jujutacular (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Las Meninas (2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2012 at 18:22:33 (UTC)

Reason: Not being used in article space, as it has been replaced in all 16 instances by the much larger Google version, File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg. We've determined that the Google version is too dark and not suitable to replace this version as FP: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Las Meninas. Before I go changing all of the articles, however, I think it's worth asking first if this version is going to stay put in the articles, and do we want it to? Perhaps neither version is FP-worthy?
Articles this image appears in: none at present
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Las Meninas
Nominator: Julia\^talk

Delist per earlier nom. 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs)
Delist. It's not the place of FPC to declare that article editors are wrong to use a different image, so, regardless of whether we promote the other (and I don't think another nom would be a bad thing) this one should be delisted. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and once this clears, renom the other. Clegs (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per above. NauticaShad es 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per above. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Goa

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 16:44:59 (UTC)

Reason: The original reasons for promotion bear little resembelence to today's criteria: there doesn't seem to be a source for the map, either for data or verifiability; the scale doesn't have any units. Original creator/nominator is inactive. I'd consider making an SVG version if it can be brought up to standards.
Articles this image appears in: Goa, North Goa, South Goa
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of Goa
Nominator: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)

Delist — Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This really isn't up to the standards we'd expect today. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per J Milburn. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 08:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above, and note that the compass rose is much too jarring Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post-deadline vote/comment: this should be delisted, even if it only had four votes at deadline. It's pretty clear-cut. Chick Bowen 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg (2nd nomination)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 13:18:04 (UTC)

Reason: File was nominated here for delisting based on its non-usage. A discussion regarding its usage in the article on the species just finished, and the consensus was that doesn't add enough new information to include it in the article. Since it's not in any article, we need to have a delist vote on it.
Articles this image appears in: Nothing; formerly Pachygrapsus_marmoratus
Previous nomination/s: FP nom; Delist nom
Nominator: Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse})

Delist — Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The discussion has determined that this does not belong in the article. Further, as it is not actually illustrative of the key differences between the sexes, this adds nothing to the other, already featured image. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if it is really so necessary, delist this photo. No problem and no any personal insult for me. Cheers. ;-) -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist has no article. Tomer T (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, should be fast-tracked back to FP if it finds a home. Chick Bowen 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Hoss

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 16:18:18 (UTC)

Reason: Procedural nomination: no longer used in any articles. Removed from Cowboy in this edit with the reasoning that it was not relevant to the section it was in. Removed from Charles Marion Russell only 3 days after its insertion.
Articles this image appears in: none; was: Cowboy, Charles Marion Russell
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Marion Russell - A bad hoss (1904).jpg
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist. NOTE: Original nominator (User:Adam Cuerden) not notified, as he has retired from the project. —howcheng {chat} 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Darn shame. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, if it couldn't stick in the artist's article it probably doesn't have much value. Chick Bowen 18:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Osprey

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 04:40:06 (UTC)

Reason: Terrible, terrible, terrible technical quality.
Articles this image appears in: Dozens, but not Osprey or a species article
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Osprey
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easy delist. Amazing how much our standards have changed. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist poor quality. extra999 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist noisy. Pine^(talk) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Composionally a nice shot, shame about the poor quality. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the version we are looking at seems to be an upsample. The original discussion was evidently about this version. I don't know if that makes a difference, given the lowish resolution, but at least it might explain the thinking of the original voters. Chick Bowen 01:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, not great quality. --Avenue (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magellanic penguin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 09:24:19 (UTC)

Reason: Blown highlights, lack of use
Articles this image appears in: Supraorbital gland, List of birds of Chile
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Magellanic penguin
Nominator: — Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I'm not sure it's any worse than the current lead image in that article, but its usage currently lacks any real EV, and the blown highlights and uninspiring crop do not scream "featured picture" at me. J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. As I've said before I'm not for just delisting anything that might not pass today, but quality of this is well down. --jjron (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Only part of the animal is in focus, blown highlights, marginal resolution. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 06:24:21 (UTC)

Reason: I wouldn't say this is an obvious delist, but I'm taking this opportunity, on the 75th anniversary of the bridge's opening, to nominate this image for delisting as I just don't think the quality is very good. Interestingly, the same was said during its nomination seven years ago, but its technically challenging nature seemed to override that. I imagine standards have gone up since then, and having seen other photos of the Golden Gate Bridge taken during less-the-ideal lighting times (e.g. before dawn) this doesn't seem to meet the expectations for a featured picture. Maybe the best night photo we have, but I feel this is quite distant from the best we can do and its difficulty shouldn't outweigh its quality deficiencies.
Articles this image appears in: Golden Gate Bridge
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ggb by night.jpg
Nominator: -- tariqabjotu

Delist — -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Blown highlights + chromatic aberration + marginal size and quality = Delist. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not awful. D&R if a better version gets uploaded. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This is damn near identical to the non-featured (and would-not-be-featured) day-time lead image in the article, I guess they're taken from a standard vantage point, yet I'd say the lead image has higher EV (bridge structure is far clearer, etc); probably why it's the lead. Sure this one is a decent and pretty picture, as many pics of the GGB are, but not FP in my view. This is now buried well down in the article. I guess you could argue it's good EV for the bridge at night, but even then lights are really strong, especially at the far end of the bridge where they totally dominate the picture. Seems the Commons delist of this on quality grounds was pretty conclusive a couple of years back. --jjron (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Nice, but hardly featured picture material. I don't think it's the worst picture in our galleries, but this is a highly, highly photographed landmark. We can expect better. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom, Jjron, and others. --Avenue (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greencastle Harbour

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 02:10:13 (UTC)

Reason: I nominated this for deletion a while ago for copyright reasons, but you know Commons: it could be months. I think we should go ahead and delist it. In addition to the copyright problem (which is that there's no evidence that the underlying painting is free, just the digitization), EV seems low to me: it was originally supported in part based on its use in Greencastle, County Donegal, but it hasn't been used there in some years.
Articles this image appears in: Sheila McClean
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/GreencastleHarbour 2004 SeanMcClean
Nominator: Chick Bowen

Delist — Chick Bowen 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Even if the license is actually correct, the artistic quality is quite low and the subject can be replaced by photo, which would bring much higher EV. Brandmeister^talk 20:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because of the problematic licensing. I'm open to this having EV as a representative of the artist's work, but the licensing has to come first. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending resolution of deletion nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

File deleted. Julia\^talk 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg (2)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2012 at 16:19:08 (UTC)

Reason: First time around, we ran out time after trying to determine if this was a picture of the correct species or not. The conclusion was that it might be, but it wasn't 100% certain. Without a definitive species identification, then it by definition it should be delisted. Regardless, it's still not in any articles, and Melo aethiopica is a one-line stub with a large infobox and three images, so there's not really any room there.
Articles this image appears in: None (was: Melo aethiopica)
Previous nomination/s: FPC nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
First delist nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Melo aethiopica 001.jpg
Nominator: —howcheng {chat}

Delist — —howcheng {chat} 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not used in article. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist if unused. --99of9 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as unused. If a home is found for it it can be speedily reinstated. Chick Bowen 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I participated in this discussion. And yes, the five delist minimum has not been met. But this image is still not used in article space. This is the most important criterion for FP, so this image must be delisted. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo man in ceremonial dress

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2012 at 14:01:14 (UTC)

Charlie Day, a European American trader's son, costumed as a God Impersonator, in ceremonial dress including mask and body paint, c.1904

Reason: Image is no longer used in the corresponding article, and the article doesn't mention the relevance of the image or the depicted costume. EV is further called into question due to the fact that the photo appears to be unauthentic. According to Pinney, Christopher; Peterson, Nicolas (2003). Photography's Other Histories. Duke University Press.:
Research into an early trading family's unpublished photographic archive revealed that Curtis's masked Navajo were often phony - they were actually photographs of a European-American trader's son in Navajo gear! ... Curtis's turn-of-the century project was motivated by a nostalgic concern for the "vanishing race."
There's also an anonymous comment on the file talk page stating that it is culturally insensitive.
Articles this image appears in: History of painting; used to be in Navajo people
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Navajo man in ceremonial dress
Nominator: Paul_012 (talk)

Delist — Paul_012 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, not used in a significant way. Its use in History of painting makes little sense, since the article has no other discussion of body paint that I could see at a quick glance, and it is otherwise unused. In addition, the concerns raised by Paul 012 in the nomination are valid ones. Chick Bowen 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. Potentially could be used encyclopedically in the context of discussion about Curtis's photography, but, so far as I can see, we have none. (And it may not be something significant enough to discuss anyway.) J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Chick Bowen
Delist Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2012 at 20:50:36 (UTC)

Reason: No longer the best picture available. To be replaced by this nomination. No need for two Featured Pictures of the same thing.
Articles this image appears in: ~~Used only in Template:The Moon~~ (as far as a I know. I'll be checking all links.)
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Full Moon
Nominator: Dusty777

Delist — Dusty777 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace with the larger image. Pine^✉ 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per nom. Spencer^T♦C 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per nom. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per nom. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Replaced picture in Template:The Moon with new nomination. ~~The file page still says it's used in all listed articles, but I can't find it in any of the articles, if someone can help me troubleshoot that.~~ Dusty777 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above. (The other has now been promoted.) I have also replaced this image with the new one on Book:Moon. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per all above Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama of Château de Chambord, France.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2012 at 00:01:52 (UTC)

Reason: Not in use in the article any more. Superseded by the picture nominated here.
Articles this image appears in: None
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chambord pano.jpg
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Delist — J Milburn (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist JKadavoor Jee 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Clearly not as good as the proposed replacement, which looks certain to pass. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Should have been opened as a D&R. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem using two separate processes. Forcing D&R implies that FP status affords protection to an image in the article. It doesn't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a major problem with using two separate processes when they end up keeping both images when they serve an identical purpose. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with J Milburn. Especially since almost exclusively, a D&R comes as a result of the old FP already having been superseded in an article by a superior image. In fact, I think FP status does afford some protection to an image in an article, if not dogmatically then at least in practice because many editors (even those not involved in FPC) do revert removal of FPs on the basis of them being featured. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the current implementation of D&R under delist is not very fruitful. Please notice JJH's comment on the D&R request below: "I prefer not to do delist and replaces when nominating as it is tough to get a quorum". I think the best way is to consider a normal FPC as a D&R if anybody (including the nominator) add another FP there (just like an alt/edit) to replace. -- JKadavoor Jee 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This could very easily be solved by just listing the D/R and delist options with the rest of the nominations. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Good idea; not many people spend time to scroll down and reach here; I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably not the best place to discuss it but I'd support reworking D/R's to be up with the rest of the nominations, it is essentially a nomination anyway.. — raeky t 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd also like to support if somebody (probably a more experienced user here) will raise a proposal at the talk page (I guess it is the right place). J Kadavoor J e e 12:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Julia\^talk 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other