Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/2006

Image:Mad scientist.svg
I can see the use of this picture and it illustrates the stereotypical idea of a mad scientist, but, in my opinion, is it in anyway up to FD standards. Delist. Sotakeit 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - I do not know of any article where this picture can add any significant information. Even though I have to admit that I'm biased - I'm a scientist myself. Not gone mad (yet), though. --Mikeo 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - captures the subject well and supports articles like mad scientist quite well --Mikeo 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's perfectly appropriate for, and very illustrative of, mad scientist. Its use there obviates the need for a fair-use photo of (say) Dr Frankenstein. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's also in the cartoon article, quite appropriately. It is a bit small, I have notified the artist, User:J.J., let's see if he can provide a larger one. In any case, it's a great graphic, would hate to see it go from FP. --Janke | Talk 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like this one, captures its subject well. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Well-illustrative, and as big as it needs to be (this isn't the kind of picture where you need to zoom in on specific details). Mark1 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I absolutely hate depictions of "mad scientists" for far too many reasons to list here, but my objections are of a personal bias and this image is otherwise satisfactory to remain featured.--Deglr6328 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Bevo 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Too small for a quality print reproduction, but I can't bear to see it go. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason for it to go. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It illustrates the article well, but isn't striking and doesn't actually add much to the article. It isn't "worth a thousand words." Go back and read the first paragraph of this page. Like I said, it's a good illustration for the article, but it doesn't add anything that isn't already there, doesn't make it easier to comprehend or imagine or anything. Twilight Realm 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could not envision a better realization of a mad scientist.  Starry Eyes  03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't this be an SVG now? - Samsara contrib talk 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Good portrayal of a mad scientist - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px]] • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •  T 12:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP, although an SVG version would perhaps be preferable. Raven4x4x 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Geisha-fullheight.jpg

 * Since we promoted a real Geisha pic [[Image:Geisha Kyoto Gion.jpg|28px]] I suggest we delist this one which according to that debate was of fake Geisha. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It's small, too. --Janke | Talk 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Rather on the small side. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is still the prevailing picture at Geisha - Bevo 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delisting it from FP won't change that... --Janke | Talk 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist, but for size, not authenticity concerns. The caption and image page clearly state that they're only dressed as maiko, as did the debate where it was promoted. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is still and excellent picture even if it is not of real geisha. Sotakeit 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a good example of what Geisha wore before WWII. Pschemp | Talk 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we remove it from the encyclopedia, just that we don't need it as a featured pic now we have a much more notable geisha pic. I agree this is a good pic, but do you think it is good enough to warrant a second FP on the same subject? ~ Veledan • Talk 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Size is fine. It could use a little work with coloring/contrast, but that's not enough reason for delisting. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-02-3 05:39
 * Keep--Deglr6328 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep KILO-LIMA 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP Raven4x4x 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)



Image:German_Monopoly_board_in_the_middle_of_a_game.jpg
Not particularly high res and not particularly sharp. Promoted back in 2004, and probably wouldn't make it today. (It's also a picture of the German-language monopoly, not English-language, though that isn't really a problem to me.) Delist. Zafiroblue05 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It does a nice job illustrating the game. I also like the angle of the shot and the white background--Lewk_of_Serthic 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as Lewk_of_Serthic stated. Angel of the board is attactive and it illustrates the game well. If you could find another image that does a better job that pd, then maybe i'd change my vote. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 06:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist it is nice, but I don't think it's FP nice. We need nice images with high quality. gren グレン ? 09:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally wouldn't vote to promote it today but there's no good cause to revoke it's status. Jtkiefer T   10:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Shows what Monopoly is all about, like angle of board. Anchorage 12:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No cause to remove. enochlau (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, for the reasons stated above. - Bevo 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Small, pixellated, and very badly aliased (particularly the black lines on green, and the edges of the lowermost cards). &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. The fact that it's in German DOES bother me, but it's also small and of poor quality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It's nice, but not of the quality we currently look for in a featured picture, IMO. Mstroeck 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the angle, it couldn't have been any clearer. - JPM | 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Delisting it give the incentive for someone else to go ahead and take a more representative image. And I support delisting because it is in German - we need an English monopoly board for the English wiki. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, Agree with Diliff. --Janke | Talk 09:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist; should not be featured for the English wikipedia, badly aliased and grainy. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - very representative. Glaurung 07:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist German-language ed. less than ideal for English Wikipedia. Don't pass "LOS"; don't collect 200 Deutsche Marks? Also: Where are the dice? Where are the iconic tin player pieces like the thimble and the top hat? --[[Image:Flag of Washington, D.C..svg|30px]] D.M. (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as FP Raven4x4x 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wolf spider attack position.jpg
A December 2004 nominee that is no longer up to scratch. It is small in size by today's standards and it was acknowledged at its nomination that it was unfocused due to lack of tripod. Could the first person to agree with my assessment leave the contributor a quick message (User_talk:Fir0002) to ask about the possibility of improving the uploaded version? Thanks. - Samsara contrib talk 17:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is good/sharp/large enough to keep, even though it probably wouldn't be chosen as an FP today. IMHO, we cannot adopt the strict standards of today to all old FPs. Also, it's by far the best of all the images on Wolf spider. --Janke | Talk 07:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is not like the technology for photography was drastically different a year and two months ago. A featured picture is meant to exhibit the best images Wikipedia has to offer. If an image does not do that, then it simply should not be a featured picture. I like this photo, and hope that Fir can sharpen it somewhat, otherwise I vote to delist. --liquidGhoul 08:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Why not?" Well, should we delist everything less than 1000 px wide, which appears to be the minimum today? Also, as pointed out elsewhere, it's not only image quality that determines FP, but also "adds significantly to an article". I simply think this spider does... but, if Fir can improve the resolution, all the better! --Janke | Talk 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where have I said that it was about resolution. The problem I have with it is the motion blur. Also, it states in the featured picture critera, that a featured picture "exemplifies Wikipedia's best work", and should be: "useful, accurate and pleasing to the eye". Yes, this picture is useful to the article, but it is not completely accurate, as some features are blurred, and it is not pleasing to my eye because of the motion blur. You can see Wikipedia's best work in featured pictures which don't have obvious technical flaws. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree precisely with Janke.--ragesoss 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the spectacularaspects of this picture by far outhweight any other factors. To quote fir0002:I didn't have the benefit of a tripod as I was a considerable distance from home, and did not want to risk losing the oppurtunity. Also, due to the fact that my camera saves to jpeg format and is a little overzealous in compressing the image, the crop of the original photo shows jpeg compression. Circeus 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Janke.–Joke 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Circeus. enochlau (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comment on FP talk page. --Janke | Talk 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist for reasons given in nomination. - Samsara contrib talk 10:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Janke. CapeCodEph 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep best picture on the article and we can't delist every article that isn't 100px by 1000px just because size recommendations for current FP's change. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it'll be a while before this photo is beaten. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Janke and others  D a Gizza Chat  &#169; 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept as Featured Picture. Raven4x4x 06:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)



Image:Notre dame-paris-view.jpg
I know most (or all) people liked this image in mid 2004, but FP standards have changed. This image is too small to make out much detail, and the gargoyle is sort of distracting. The size is the main problem, I think. There are much more impressive FP cityscapes these days. Therefore, I say Unfeaturify Snargle 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - until we get a new FP of the same subject. It is possible - camera a little lower, so the gargoyle doesn't "eat" the city, etc. But no need to delist this, yet. --Janke | Talk 08:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep just because standards have changed in no way makes this an invalid feature picture. Pegasus1138 Talk 09:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep striking. -Ravedave 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Good shot but way too small... no way this image would make it today just based on the size alone. Procrastinator-General 07:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Too small. And I think it absolutely is nescessary to apply current standards to earlier nominations in order to keep up the quality of the Featured Picture collection. Also the gargyle is a bit dark. --Dschwen 07:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very nice picture, even if a little bit too small. Until we get the same view at a higher resolution, there is no need to delist. -Glaurung 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But FP is not designed as a comprehensive library of all beautiful views, it should show the best pictures on Wikipedia. --Dschwen 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you. However, this picture was promoted to the featured status. Usually, when you get a promotion (or more generally when you pass an exam), it is definitive. For example, you wouldn't be very happy if your University was to reclaim your academic diploma on the ground that criteria have changed for the exam you took years ago. On the other hand, it is true that there are some kind of promotions for which you regularly have to prove that you still meet the criteria, and FP could work like this. But in that case, we would have to systematically go through all currently featured picture to see if they still stand to the actual standard or not. If this is done, I would probably vote to delist this picture. But if it is listed alone as it is now, I don't see any reason why I would vote to delist when pictures such as or  can sleep in peace. And before listing a small picture for a possible delisting, maybe we should ask the uploader if he can provide a larger version of the picture? -- Glaurung 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing the delisting of FPs in general? I don't quite see the parallel between a university degree and a FP on wikipedia though... --Dschwen 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No I am not, but I think that, in case size is the main concern for a delisting, one should warn the uploader or nominator and ask him if he can provide a higher resolution version (which you did, thank you.). This should be the task of whomever nominates the picture for delisting. I will update the delisting rules accordingly. Glaurung 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. We have to apply current standards even to older FPs. Too small. Mikeo 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist per above standards. Not only is it small, but the actual view of Paris is also a bit too much out of focus. BigBlueFish 11:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep nice picture--Ph89 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a nice picture. Pity about the size, but its a good shot of the city and it's arcitecture -  • The Giant Puffin •  16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Neutralitytalk 18:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist This is why I hate the delisting process. It seems that people are completely against delisting photos. I have absolutely no idea why, it is not a personal thing. If a photo does not meet the requirements any more, then it is not of featured picture quality. Also, the nominator didn't inform the original contributor of the photo that the photo is up for delisting. If the main problem can be easily fixable (like small resolution can be), then tell the original contributor!! What is hard about that? Dschwen ended up doing it, and I am glad he did, but it was not up to him. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, it would not pass if it was proposed today, not just because of the size either. |→ Spaully°τ 16:49, 11 April 2006 (GMT)
 * Keep. It's too small, but makes up for it through a breathtaking composition. WOnderful use of the gargoyle. A higher-res picture will be very good, though. Loom91 09:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It's nice enough, but it wouldn't make FP status if it was submitted in the current climate. A better photo of the same general concept might work though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture Since there wasn't a consensus either way, it will remain as a FP. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Starlette
Maybe I just don't appreciate the image, but it seems like it wouldn't pass today. The image appears grainy to me and out of focus in some places. Delist. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Reason: it adds little to the articles it appears in - photojournalism‚ Cannes Film Festival, and news media - and it is a bit soft. --Janke | Talk 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Maybe I miss the point, but the subject is cut off.say1988 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As it is used in photojournalism, the subject is the photographers. ed g2s &bull; talk 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it was only promoted a year ago with +14/-2. ed g2s &bull; talk 13:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per ed g2s and the fact that it should not be delisted purely for subjective reasoning behind which articles it is in. Pegasus1138 Talk 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This wasn't promoted that long ago and as I recall it was promoted by a large margin. Its a good picture. (Keep) BrokenSegue 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delist this – I think that it adds something to all of the articles it's placed in and that it looks overall professional. The graininess doesn't bother me, maybe because it's a couple of decades older than most FPCs. –Gustavb 20:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Good picture, I think it adds to the photographer related articles -Ravedave 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No compelling reasons to delist. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I like the composition, although the photographers are slightly out of focus. --Dschwen 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I admit to a sentimental bias: this was one of the first pictures that hooked me on Featured pictures when it was on WP:POTD last August. I admit the technical defects but I think it's striking and attractive and I'd hate to see it delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a unique picture; I see no justifiable reason to delist it. As for the "soft" comment, Wikipedia is not censored. TomStar81 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Soft" meant "not sharp", not "softcore". Janke knows we're not censored. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed... ;-) This isn't even softcore... (Nor was the recent nude study, IMHO. - FWIW, I'm not against softcore on WP, if tasteful, but would oppose hardcore.) I voted delist because I think there might be better images to illustrate the articles this one appears in. --Janke | Talk 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. enochlau (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pu'u 'Ō'ō
It's today's (12 April 2006) picture of the day. It doesn't appear explicitly in the Pu'u 'Ō'ō article.. a cropped version does. Thus it either needs to be placed in the article or delisted, per the requirements. Also, it's quite low resolution and a bit blurry.. would never pass today. drumguy 8800 - speak? 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd vote for it if it was nominated due to the subject. But I do think the cropped version is better. Is there any precedent for transferring the FP status if the consensus is to keep, or would we have to re-nominate the cropped version? |→ Spaully°τ 23:47, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
 * Delist: it's a bit fuzzy, I agree that it probably wouldn't pass in today's world. --Hetar 07:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its a very striking image. -Ravedave 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is hard to get such a good caption of an erupting volcano. It is a very good illustration. There is currently no better image available. Mikeo 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, good even though small. --Janke | Talk 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Powerful, hard-to-reproduce image. Cropped version works best for Pu'u 'Ō'ō article, but perhaps full version could be included in Volcano article? -Fadookie Talk 11:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 

Ph physical map.png
It's just a map. Nominated back in 2003 and promoted (finally) in March 2004 before the FPC process had been formalised. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion the map is very useful and adds great value to the articles it appears in (probably moreso than half the images on this page). It is clear and very detailed. Most importantly, it was created by a Wikipedian and I think such work should be supported if possible. NepGrower 08:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it had been created by a wikipedian - I'll go and ask if s/he has a larger version or even a svg. If we do end up delisting this though, remember I'm only suggesting it be delisted from FP, not removed from the encyclopedia (where it's obviously very useful) ~ Veledan • Talk 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not too bad, but small. Try and wait until we hear back from the creator if they perhaps have a larger version, but if not, I'm afraid I'd say delist as well. Tis a shame, though. -- LV (Dark Mark)  05:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm the creator of the image and thankfully I still have the source images in Adobe PSD (I thought I lost everything when one of my hard drives crashed). Unfortunately, the topographic data is bitmap, so I can't convert the image to a vector format like SVG. If your concern is that it is too small or untranslateable, I can create a larger version and a blank version. I can only do it in May though, since I'm quite busy at the moment. If creating larger version is acceptable, I need a good guesstimate on the image resolution (I think A4 paper size at 300 dpi is good enough, suitable for printing?). Note though that this map is meant to show an overview of the physical geography of the Philippines so I won't likely put more labels than is necessary. Thanks! --seav 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All I want is a bigger version (in fact, I would vote keep even if you hadn't offered a bigger version), SVG isn't necessary. BrokenSegue 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a wikipedian MADE that. Thats badass. -Ravedave 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it is very illustrative, thanks again for this good map. Mikeo 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 100% encyclopedic. Bigger would indeed be better - I suggest Seav overwrites the old one with a larger version, at his leisure. --Janke | Talk 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, please upload bigger over the old one. Blank version would indeed be awesome too! --Dschwen 10:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, bigger would be better (blank too for other wikipedias.) More articles deserve a map like this. -Fadookie Talk 13:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw because a larger version is to be provided (and per clear consensus) ~ Veledan • Talk 15:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Circlestrafing.png


It might be illustrative for the subject it explains, but I don't think it's good enough to be a FP. It has been a candidate for delisting once before, in November 2004, and the votes were 3/6. –Gustavb 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd make an SVG of it, but only if everyone promises not to go all "oppose, not a macro shot of an insect "... err, "not striking", of course. Just kidding, I think I'll make one anyway. ;) (might take a while, though) -- grm_wnr Esc  01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support an SVG. Do you know of a good tutorial for making SVGs out of Gifs? I tried making one for a gerotor but failed pretty bad. My lines turned out pretty crappy. I looked at the inkscape tutorial and it showed the automated one, but not what to do if the results sucked. -Ravedave 01:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time this was nominated people suggested making an animated version, anyone wants to take up that challenge? SVG sounds good though... Neutral for now. BrokenSegue 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once there is an SVG I will make an animated version. -Ravedave 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd vote to delist this one and replace it with an animated version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's see what Ravedave will provide. The presentation needs to be clearer than this. --Janke | Talk 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we move this to the "Suspended Promotions" section because it seems we all would just like this changed to a better or animated version.--Jonthecheet 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * SVG version is finished, see right. -- grm_wnr Esc  20:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I made an animated GIF as well, just because I always wanted to do that. -- grm_wnr Esc  20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bit fast? BrokenSegue 20:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's slower now... -- grm_wnr Esc  23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ... but still quite jerky. Any chance of doubling the number of images? Then it would be much smoother, and even slower. --Janke | Talk 06:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea with the animations, but it doesnt properly convey the theory behind circle strafing. The guy in the center doesnt moveusually the guy you are circling tries to shoot at you, but can't keep the same rhythm as the strafer.--Chris 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the center person should be rotating to the left as well, just not keeping up with the outside guy?-Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my version, which is not complete. The last animation is not correct, it's missing part of the circle. Also I need to slow it down. Any other comments? Which style do people like better? What do you guys want to see in an anim? -Ravedave 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've overwritten my version with a new one that tries to adress above points - Clear your caches to see it. (for reference: old version) -- grm_wnr Esc  20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'd say demote the current version and promote the svg and this animation. BrokenSegue 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The animation looks great (with inner person moving). What now? Does this have to go through the featured pictures candiates again?--Jonthecheet 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Delist the old still picture, and nominate the first of the animations for FPC. Be sure it's been in the article for a while, though... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist original. I've removed the 'on hold, don't vote' notice from the top as the animated versions and the svg are here now. I vote delist original and nominate gnm_wnr's animation independently. Good job on the svg version, but I wouldn't support it over the improved animation and I don't think we need 2 ~ Veledan • Talk 17:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. The original is made obsolete by an animated version of the SVG. Send animated one for FPC (which ever animated one we end up selecting). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't like the animated versions at all. For starters, the characters are moving around the same speed as their bullets. If this was the case, the strafer could never hit his target - his bullets would always miss to the right. And as a spectator, it's really hard to make sense of all the bullets flying around. A good picture should try and break down and synthesise the situation - the nice static SVG does this better. I would probably remove the red guy's bullets though - remember the picture is about about the blue guy shooting. As soon as they're both shooting, the picture represents some sort of combat, instead of a simple shooting/moving technique. You could even replace the red guy with some symbolic "target" to make it even clearer. Stevage 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the SVG version with the red guy shooting back. The whole point of circlestrafing is to avoid return fire, after all.  making it not "combat" would be rather silly. Night Gyr 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Stevage, there is no sideway momentum from moving in a circle imparted on the bullet. So they will hit. Would making the blue guys bullets all different colors help? (I also removed my crappy anm)-Ravedave 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there is sideway momentum, in real life it would be negligible compared to the bullets forward momentum. --Dschwen 12:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but in the animation it looks very odd because the shooter and the bullet are moving at much the same speed. The animation needs to be slowed down a bit. --Surgeonsmate 03:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For me personally, the non-animated version makes it a lot clearer what is being depicted, perhaps because the animation has many things moving in different directions at the same time. Just my $0.02. Mike1024 (t/c) 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The nominated image was kept as the .svg version produced during this nomination. Ravedave withdrew his animation. Grm_wnr's animation had support and should probably be nominated independently ~ Veledan • Talk 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:William Cranch.jpg
I think this image is copyrighted. See: http://www.photorescuer.com/celebrities2_n.shtml

The original image was in the public domain. The only available version of the original image is significantly damaged. This restoration company redrew, cleaned up, and changed a large portion of the image. See their FAQ: "All content on this web site are protected by a U.S. Copyright. The content, including but not limited to pictures may not be downloaded or used in any way without our written consent."


 * Nominate. --  BRIAN  0918 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support de-listing. A major retouch work can be copyrighted. --Janke | Talk 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reference that describes how to convert a public domain offering into a copyrighted work by retouching? - Bevo 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support de-listing, regardless if it is still public domain. It's just a slightly ugly, unspectactular image. The original, though - aesthetically, it's much more interesting. I'd be more likely to support that for FP status... Zafiroblue05 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Too small, unremarkable. enochlau (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Copyright issues and image size. --Dschwen 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FPC status removed per consensus. Jtkiefer T  03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Yarra_river_near_city_medium.jpg
As mentioned in an above nomination, this picture does not hold up to standard anymore (blown out sky, dark foreground, picture size too low), and it is not used in a single article.


 * Nominate. --Dschwen 07:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support de-listing as per above. Wouldn't de-list all images of this size, though. 700x1000 is good enough, if the image is really stunning, and no larger is available. --Janke | Talk 08:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right (abt. the size) but here it's just too many factors combined. --Dschwen 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist - The fact that it isn't in an article is good enough for me. Broken S 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist its washed out and not anything spectacular.. + not up to standards. bag it.  drumguy 8800  - speak? 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist on the grounds that it is not linked to an actual article. TomStar81 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Has to have an article  D a Gizza Chat  (c) 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist on quality. - Bevo 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist as per the criteria that featured pictures must be used in an article. Jtkiefer T   04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It was actually I that removed it from the Yarra River article originally, as I didn't feel it was spectacular in any way, and I replaced it with another featured picture. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Its a nice picture, but it doesn't show anything clearly. I nominated it for delisting in October 2004. -- Solipsist 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

FPC status removed per consensus. Jtkiefer T  03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Common_clownfish.jpg
Small size and garish colours. - Samsara contrib talk 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Insert witty Nemo comment here. --Dschwen 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Size is one of the problems. Colors are blown out, not only the white of the fish, therer is also barely any structure in the orange. Sharpness is borderline, a larger version will not help. --Dschwen 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. Samsara contrib talk 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist for small size, unless we get a bigger one; the white on the fish also looks overexposed. But you are joking about the garishness, right? Markyour words 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Agree with above. Alr 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. See my comments in Anolemeal below. --Janke | Talk 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist ACK Mark Calderwood 10:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist for colour (over exposed) and size. I've added a note to the uploader's talk page in case a larger one is available since most objections so far seem to be size related. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist overexposed. --liquidGhoul 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)



Image:Anolemeal6127.jpg
Image is not sharp (camera motion blur?). Also compare with Image:P1010027.jpg which is a better featured image of the same species. - Samsara contrib talk 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Very unsharp. --Janke | Talk 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist ACK Janke Calderwood 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Samsara contrib talk 19:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Not up to the current standard anymore. --Dschwen 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to be charitable here. It's not as sharp as current FPs, but it is fairly big for an August 04 FP, and the image itself is strikingly natural, far more so than the other FP, which is pretty to look but boring aside from that. Zafiroblue05 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree, totally, with above Sotakeit 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to both above votes: A good friend of mine has had these in captivity for a number of years, and I can tell you with some certainty that a shot like this would not be too difficult to get in the wild, especially if you're using a bait fly in typical habitat. This will make it relatively easy to get a sharp image, too, as you can position your tripod in front of the bait and be relatively sure of a good shot. These animals are fairly curious, and especially males are not too shy. In fact, captive ones may voluntarily come to sit on your hand if you've got warm hands. - Samsara contrib talk 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But even if this picture is staged to some extent, it is still a more interesting staging than the other FP. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Remember, FPs should be the very best Wikipedia has to offer. This means that older stuff will have to be delisted, as requirements change. Also, delisting from FP in no way affects the image's status in its article(s). I am in favor of delisting all small, unsharp FPs, in order to remove them from cluttering the collection of new, better ones. Delisting does not equal deleting ! In fact, I think it is such an important distinction that I added it to the voting instructions. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist; too blurry. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - not up to standard.--Deglr6328 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)



Image:Sydney_opera house.jpg

 * Seems to be poorly compressed with artifacts. Also probably a bit small. Alr 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. enochlau (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. It's a nice shot, wish it was bigger. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Not striking at all to me. Mstroeck 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Mikeo 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. --Dschwen 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Samsara contrib talk 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Calderwood 16:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist compression too high, artifacts Glaurung 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - too small. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 07:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 

Image:Bluesky.jpg
A nice picture, but tiny by current FP standards. We also have a superior FP picture of the same type of clouds at Image:GoldenMedows.jpg. Delist. Zafiroblue05 21:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Agreed. Alr 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Too small Broken S 14:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep small, but nice. --Lewk_of_Serthic 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - res to low. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 06:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist yep, tiny ~ Veledan • Talk 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * withdrawn my delist pending news from Denni. This is a wonderful and rare sky so it would be a shame to lose it.  I apologise for not thinking to ask.  ~ Veledan • Talk 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist too small --Mikeo 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, as above. enochlau (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a good illustration of cumulus clouds (looks like perfect gliding weather). However, this is a pretty old FP and comes from an era when we limited image sizes. It would probably worth askying User:Denni whether there is a larger version available. A similar situation occured with Image:Mackerelskybig.jpg not so long ago and that resulted in a higher res upload. -- Solipsist 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Solipsist. I was feeling kind of discouraged when this got nominated, as it comes from a time when we were discouraged from uploading large images. It is very, very rare to see such pure cumulus humilis skies, and despite the fact this photo is close to 20 years old, I have not seen such a pure day since. This image comes from a slide, and I would be happy to provide a larger image, but I will need some time to find the original. If people can bear with me, I will provide it ASAP. D e nni &#9775;  00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, too small. If you can upload a larger version, I'd vote keep, but 288x442 is definitely too small. It's a beautiful sky, though. --Janke | Talk 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Samsara contrib talk 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until Deni can find a larger version before deciding on this, as it seems that size is the only concern here. Raven4x4x 05:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be inappropriate to delist as per process and have the high res one go through FPC again. Because the high res one might be noisy etc, or have something else that people object to. enochlau (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist current version, keep if larger image is found. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an outstanding weather photo which perfectly illustrates Cumulus humilis clouds. --Eraticus 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted If Deni can find a larger version there will be no problem with it going through FPC again. We just need to clear this backlog. :) Raven4x4x 07:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Garden Orb Weaver
The image is only 726x603 px, and we have a better picture of an Orb-Weaver spider featured. Compare the image with this (superior) image Image:Orb_weaver_black_bckgrnd03_crop.jpg. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Fir has obviously gone out and improved on his own photo. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Neutralitytalk 01:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist since there is a clearly superior picture of the same subject that has reached featured status. Pegasus1138 Talk 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist since there is a better image available. --Janke | Talk 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist better image is available. Mikeo 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's still a good picture, even if there might be a better one of the same subject. I still like it enough to keep. Oh well. -- LV (Dark Mark)  05:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Nevermind... too small. I do like the picture though. -- LV  (Dark Mark)  05:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Blue morpho butterfly
The thumbnail is pretty, and the image seems to be used a lot. But the actual image is only 800px wide and appears very washed out. The high ref-count is due to inclusion in a stub template. Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist I don't mind the resolution, but the photo is blurry. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain as per my other arguments that we can't retroactively apply new standards to old noms when the photo itself is not changed. The whole point of this process so far and the reason why until recently there was no delisting is that unless an entirely new photo is taken (which in itself would have to go through the FP process) there is no way to make more than minor fixes to the photo. Pegasus1138 Talk  00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Butterfly has no abdomen. Neutralitytalk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Extremely blurry. This is a very proper delisting nomination! There doesn't need to be a better image available - delisting will not delete this picture, it will still be in its article(s). --Janke | Talk 05:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Mikeo 15:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Does look blurry. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pentakisdodecahedron
Not used in any article. It was inserted into Pentakis dodecahedron several times, and was always kicked out. The animation aspect is nice but does not significantly increase the understanding of the shape. Colors are not exactly pretty (but that's probably very subjective). Delist. --Dschwen 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Boring subject, and it is missing a vital criterion. --liquidGhoul 23:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Due to fact that it does not meet the criteria of being used in an article. Pegasus1138 Talk 00:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Neutralitytalk 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist as per nom. --Janke | Talk 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist see above Mikeo 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed as a featured picture --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Machu-Picchu.jpg
Another one from March 2004 informally promoted. Not a patch on the new candidate. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Image:Machu-Picchu.jpg has been delisted (and the new one promoted today, too) ~ Veledan • Talk 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, a much better version is about to be promoted. And even if it weren't, the pic is much to small. --Dschwen 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist: per above. --Hetar 07:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Too small. Much better version will most probably a FP. Mikeo 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. I'm re-nominating the (fixed) panorama. --Janke | Talk 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist too small, pano is Betta!. -Ravedave 02:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist The panorama is better - Glaurung 06:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Agreed Alr 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mtl-metro-map.png
I can't find any evidnce of this ever having been promoted or discussed. And anyway, it's a small tube map. Delist ~ Veledan • Talk 20:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably was - we just didn't have proper archiving back then. ed g2s &bull; talk 02:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I spent the whole of yesterday afternoon searching the histories. The other pics I nominated for delisting took some finding too - none of the pics were shown in their respective discussions which made it tough ~ Veledan • Talk 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a small tube map which is an essential contribution to the Montreal Metro article. I'm sure drawing a map like this is a lot more work than snapping some of the pictures which can be seen at WP:FP. Anyway, the file format is a knock-out so delist PNG, but keep if... an SVG version is provided (and the copyright notice is removed from the image, this belongs on the image page or the SVG source as a comment if you wish). --Dschwen 09:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Odd copyright info and rather small. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright isn't odd, it's GFDL (someone should clip off the copyright notice on the bottom). Neutral to delisting, keep it if an SVG is found.BrokenSegue 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Odd copyright info... on the image. --- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I "found" (i.e. made) an SVG version, and I can testify that it really is a lot of work :) -- grm_wnr Esc  04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The SVG version ommits accents such as on Collège. If they were reincluded I might support its replacement. BigBlueFish 17:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... As far as I can tell, it doesn't (at least I see one on the Orange Line station Du Collège - is there another place where I missed one?) -- grm_wnr Esc  22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eek... my mistake. On the default Wikipedia SVG rendering though, the accents are all only a couple of pixels, barely enough to show what type of accent they are. I don't know if a different font could be used to improve this. At any rate, I suppose the current SVG is acceptable seeing as it does have the accents. BigBlueFish 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for delisting. Quality is good. It is illustrative. Plus the effort needed to make this one was most probably much higher than for some of the supported snapshots above. Mikeo 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Promote the SVG and delist the png. BrokenSegue 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep edit I cant find any missing accents... -Ravedave 02:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. A FP should impress and create interest in the article. I just don't see any diagram do that. --P199 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. For a very good diagram, see the recent "leaf morphology" FP - wow! --Janke | Talk 07:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. Not goose-bump inducing... Seriously, this is good in its article, but not so stunningly good it deserves FP. It's too cramped, the typography and layout is not "the very best WP has to offer". --Janke | Talk 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist per Janke. enochlau (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Good diagram but not featured quality. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Good, not great. ed g2s &bull; talk 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mtl-metro-map.svg was delisted (7/3) - Great that we got a .svg version out of it though! Thanks to Grm_wnr for that ~ Veledan • Talk 16:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dostoevsky 1872.jpg
Nice picture, but very small - it was promoted a long time ago. I can't find a bigger version on the internet (except for one slightly-larger image that is inferior to this one in terms of color). I put a message on the uploaders talk page a while ago, with no response. Image:Dostoevsky_1872.jpg has been delisted ~ Veledan • Talk 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px|Delist]] Delist Much too small. —<span style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0; font-family: Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial; font-size: 10pt; color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #000000">Black and White <span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 8pt; text-decoration: none; letter-spacing: -1pt; color: #000000">USERTALKCONTRIBS [[Image:Yin yang.svg|15px|Black and White]] 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist due to size. bcasterline t 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. As above. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)