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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:19:28 (UTC)
An Ogg-Theora Video
Reason
I opposed the original nomination in 2015. It is embarrassing that Wikipedia decided to feature an Ogg-Theora encoded video in 2015, despite the format having never been widely adopted, and already obselete by 2014.
I'd have left it as another embarrassing FPC artifact, but saw that very recently, another 2015 video which I opposed for the same reasons (but passed anyway), was delisted for using a low quality, obsolete format - Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/PWR Nuclear Power Plant Maybe Wikipedians understand the argument now.
Taking the source video and re-encoding it as VP9 would create an unambiguously better video than the one featured, just as it would have been in 2015. Any Theora file fails criteria #1.
Pinging Crisco 1492 as this file is due to be front paged in a few hours. - hahnchen 21:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this nomination affects the main page featuring. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a replacement. As far as I understand, the format is still one of those accepted here, even if not preferred. Given webm is preferred, when we have a webm version of this we can delist one and replace it with the other. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, it's quite odd to refer to a U.S. submarine as a U-boat, which of course is a German term (for Untersee Boot). Sca (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it not possible to find a larger resolution version on the NASA website? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Resolution by itself isn't strong enough grounds to delist an irreplaceable image with high EV such as this one. The resolution criterion can be waived, and I consider such a waiver for this image likely even today. MER-C 09:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. --Janke | Talk 12:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist not for resolution, but since it was actually hard to find this image on both pages, it was buried well with the text, reducing it's EV. Mattximus (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it sticks. Everyone and their dog has an image of Tower Bridge, so I suspect this might get bumped again. This is one of the best ones. MER-C 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good photo though, it seems very high resolution and sharp. It shows the bridge a lot more accurately in terms of colours, and from a better angle, than the current lead image. Why can someone not just simply put this image back in the article rather than delist it?131.111.184.8 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a much better photo than the current lead image, I just added it back. If its stable then we don't need to delist. Mattximus (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good photo, no reason to delist. --Janke | Talk 17:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the other night FP, which is also underutilised. They're great photos, but it seems we haven't been able to get them both to stick in the article. Some editors prefer a daytime photo for the infobox, and File:Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg was a promising replacement, but its nom failed because others disliked the skyscrapers in the background. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that there is a good reason to delist this. If there is disagreement in the article about whether a night view or day view is better, and we have good photos of both, then both can go in the article. --Pine✉ 06:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 13:28:31 (UTC)
World War I
Reason
Short of minimum requirements on both sides (1,400 × 1,069 px) for illustrating World War I, today's POTD. Surely when it comes to such broad topics, better high-resolution alternatives exist, even in natural color.
Delist – Per previous. Sca (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. A higher resolution scan of this photo should also be possible. MER-C 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While this statement is true, I forgot we don't delist on resolution grounds alone. I'd like to see a replacement before delisting, hence keep. MER-C 15:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, our goal is not to feature the highest resolution images, it's to feature the best images. Unless someone has a better image of a WWI trench to offer, I think this one should stay. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - it's all very well to say there are "surely" better WWI trench images... but are there? Happy to reconsider if there are, but this seems decent quality considering the circumstances, is evocative, historically important and irreplaceable, and no evidence has been produced that better images actually exist. TSP (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's used to illustrate WWI in general, not a WWI trench. But even then I can find a higher resolution for a trench. Brandmeistertalk 10:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the opposite of a problem to me. It's being used in dozens of articles because it's a great image; but it only needs to be in one article to be featured. I'm happy to see suggestions for which are the trench images better than this one, but resolution isn't everything; encyclopedic value is just as important. (If your objection is specifically that it was Armistice Day picture of the day... that's happened, delisting it won't undo it, and I wouldn't imagine it will be picture of the day again any time soon.) TSP (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until alternatives are found. Renata (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2018 at 16:15:07 (UTC)
Original video, Theora/VorbisNew video, VP9/Opus
Reason
The current video is encoded with Theora at too low a bitrate, which give noticeable compression artifacts to the video. This encode is done with VP9 and Opus, which give virtually lossless image and audio compared to the original. It also have the benefit of being decodable directly by web-browsers.
Multi-threaded decoding has been enabled for VP9 to speed up decoding.
The Theora encode has its color primaries improperly set, which result in the colors being rendered incorrectly. This has also been fixed in this encode.
Delist and replace — MER-C 11:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace as original uploader. Seems like a sensible replacement. Can we have a snippet comparison, as opening those files in original size is really pushing it. 56,000 pixel width 'o' ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Trialsanderrors: See File:Along the River 7-119-3 excerpt.jpg and File:Along the River During the Qingming Festival (Qing Court Version) excerpt.jpg. It's a clear improvement. MER-C 14:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace — MER-C 03:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question The source is just given as "art database": How certain can we be about these colours? Otherwise, other than reflections (which are normal enough for this sort of reproduction, but very slightly less prominent in the old), this seems quite a bit superior Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 05:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, I offer [1] and [2]. This reproduction seems to be between the two in terms of yellowness. MER-C 06:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm no expert, but FWIW the French Wiki article uses the darker version. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with either one. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TomStar81: To be clear for purposes of closing, that means you would support a delist and replace, OR keeping the original? Kind of like a support either vote? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2018 at 23:11:47 (UTC)
PNG VersionProposed SVG version
Reason
The previous delist nom had issues, mainly with handling color breaks between lines. This version does not have that issue. The file size is over 10 times smaller, and the file format is SVG (preferred by many).
Delist and replace — Pbroks13 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there's a lot to like about your new version, but could you have a look at the shadow? It's a little odd. I mean, I know it's stylised, but it seems to have a slightly odd double-light-source look. The shadow is more subtly done in the PNG, which adds something to the illusion, as it's easy to almost not notice the shadow when looking over the two squares. The larger letters are a nice touch. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, and I completely agree. I've fixed the light-source issue and blended the shadow a bit better. Granted, it's not identical to the png. Of course, if wikipedia could render Gaussian blurs properly, I'd be much easier to match. If you believe the subltleness of the shadows is still an issue, I can spend more time adjusting them. Pbroks13 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Thanks for that! Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 04:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The proposed image is not yet in any article - does it have to be, before it even can be nominated? If not, then I support replacing. --Janke | Talk 10:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Janke No, it doesn't need to be. If the original is used in articles, than the closer (me) will change everyone to use the replacement image. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Janke and Armbrust: I'm pulling this to WT:FPC. I do NOT want to derail a nom with off-topic discussion, but want to discuss this. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 05:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the answer, Replace. --Janke | Talk 15:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace. MER-C 15:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it is recommended here (not required) that SVGs pass the W3C validator. I ran the check [4] and got 2 errors, not sure how significant that is though. Bammesk (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, it is in this case. I forgot to convert the "A" and "B" from text to path, which could cause rendering issues. Nonetheless, the problems are fixed, and now does pass the validator. Pbroks13 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 18:22:00 (UTC)
Current featured pictureNew restoration.
Reason
The current version has several de-noising artifacts as well as overdarkened shadows and is of lower resolution. I've made a new restoration from the original TIFF scans of the negative from Library of Congress.
Delist — FakeShemp (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support delist & replace – but I prefer the full size original with no rotation (restored for artifacts of course). Bammesk (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I note the reasons for the proposed change, but to me the older version is more visually accessible due to better contrast. Sca (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture, but it can't retain that status, as it isn't used in any article curretly. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unrestored version has noticeably better sharpness, which is especially apparent in her face in comparison to the Lange article crop version. The restored image brings out a little more detail from the shadows, but the overall 'restored' image is decidedly fuzzier than the 'original'. DonFB (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, wow, it's far too low resolution to be featured. Mattximus (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, yes, agree with the above. --Janke | Talk 12:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Yann (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - A landscape/nature shot is not the sort of thing that should be on the edge of the minimum resolution threshold. From what I gather, the full resolution was not uploaded? (maybe I'm misreading). It's an interesting question about what should happen to FPs as time goes on. Will we always be replacing after 8-10 years as technology improves, or are we at a point now that, although quality will continue to improve, is an acceptable baseline? Don't know the answer. It's a nice pic, but I agree with the idea that FPs of such subjects should be higher resolution. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is that we will always improve and try to raise our standards. It's true for other featured material. Look back at WP:FAs, WP:FLs, etc, from 2008 or earlier and you can see how much we have improved with today's standards. What was featured quality 10 years ago is not featured quality today. Just my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 12:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The delist nomination wasn't listed until now. So I'm resetting the expiry time for this one. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 02:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: sorry about that, I'm still new to the processes here, I didn't realise delists were transcluced with the candidates. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace — MER-C 20:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, much better resolution, but the contrast is way too low. Somenone care to hike it a bit? (I'me totally unfamiliar with the OGG format myself...) --Janke | Talk 13:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to replace the current featured picture, but it can't retain that status, as it isn't used in any article currently. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2018 at 03:42:01 (UTC)
Current FPSuggested replacement: Restored by Adam Cuerden, in colour.
Reason
The Library of Congress have a large, clearer copy of this available... but it's still the black and white image we see here. I think it's time to accept what's already standard practice on Wikipedia: The coloured version is by far preferred. I have not replaced any of the original image. I HAVE replaced the suggested replacement with a restored version, as I felt I should do the bit of work needed to really make it excellent.
I'm afraid, per the rules, that's not actually an option if it's not used in articles. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 18:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough support to replace the current featured picture, but it can't retain that status, as it isn't used in any article currently. --ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've forgotten how to deal with these and they are in some inconsistent state. It also looks like File:Edward Hopper - Girl at a Sewing Machine (1921).jpg can be uploaded locally. MER-C 12:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also tagged the following images as featured pictures. The originals promoted have been renamed on Commons, but their local FP tag got lost somehow in the mix.
The only action required here is to determine whether File:Edward Hopper - Girl at a Sewing Machine (1921).jpg can be uploaded locally, and to upload it. I'm not a Commons admin, so I can't do this. If the image can be uploaded locally, then I'll restore the local file description page. MER-C 15:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: That could only be uploaded under fair use, if can't be proven it was published before 1923. (In which case it couldn't retain its featured status). But if that's possible, than it's undeletion should be requested on Commons. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, yes, the publication of a painting problem. I see that you have effectively delisted it (all that remains is removal from FPT). Duck and cover has been nominated for replacement, so I think we're done here. MER-C 20:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Hopper is American, and the picture was probably painted in New York. Therefore ability to host on Commons == ability to host here. I'm not going to pursue the undeletion of the image. MER-C 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]