Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Backlit mushroom.jpg

Backlit mushroom.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 21:05:27 (UTC)


 * Reason:I know you may not expect me to nominate fungal pictures for delisting, but this is not particularly useful. It was used in lamella (mycology), but it is hardly representative and not particularly useful (at worse, it could be said to be a little confusing). It's now been replaced. It is in no way identified (beyond the fact it's a mushroom), nor is identification really possible. I will notify the nominator.
 * Articles this image appears in:None.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Backlit mushroom.jpg
 * Nominator: J Milburn (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist — I agree with the delist rationale. (Quite probably a Parasola, FWIW) Sasata (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guessed Mycena or Marasmius, but you'll be better at it than me. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See here for a similar individual I once photographed. These are wispy, ephemeral mushrooms that appear overnight and typically last only a few hours before fading into nothing. The white stem, dark gills, and translucent cap with margins turned upwards are pretty solid clues to narrow to genus level I think. Sasata (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see the issue of whether it can be identified as secondary to the aesthetic aspect. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, it isn't. We don't promote pictures just because they're pretty- we promote them because of what they add to the articles in which they are used. Secondly, this doesn't change the fact that this is not used in any articles, or the fact that there is no clear use for it. The idea that we keep a picture as featured purely because it's pretty, when it is not used in the encyclopedia, is almost laughable. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not used because you recently removed it. Maybe you were right to do that&mdash;I'm not a mushroom specialist so I don't know&mdash;but you can't for that reason use that it's not in an article as a reason to delist in and of itself. :)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can though. It might be a slight conflict of interest to both remove the image and nom for delisting, but if it did belong in the article it would likely have been re-added by someone else (assuming it gets enough traffic anyway). Alternatively, we could discuss whether it should be re-added here. But it absolutely should be nominated for delisting if it isn't used. As I said below, being used in an article is a fundamental requirement of a FP. If it isn't, and can't be re-homed, it has to go. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But you can surely see the problem with removing it, and the same person then wanting to delist it, then telling someone who objects that they're being silly because it's not being used. I don't want to be POINTy, but all it would take to demolish that position would be to add it to an article. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Add it to an article where it has EV, which is all of nowhere. Yes, I removed it- two of the main areas in which I work are fungi and featured pictures; I hate to say it, but if anyone's "qualified" to remove it... Alternatively, you could pretend Sasata (who voted to delist and agreed with my reasoning) was the one who removed it- he is even more of a fungi specialist myself, and also a fairly regular participant at FPC, and took note of my edit by pointing out a stupid mistake I made. If you feel there's a procedural problem, that's fair enough, but making a song and dance about it in this instance isn't really gonna achieve much. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a song and dance. The only reason I commented more than once is that, given that there's a request for comments here, when people don't say what you'd prefer them to say, I don't think you should tell them how wrong and silly they are. And that's my final point! :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Any keep vote that doesn't address the issue of the photo not having an article home is missing a rather fundamental point. A delist involving an orphaned FP should almost be a formality that doesn't need any discussion, except for the fact that it provides a convenient venue and motivation for finding the FP a new home. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist Easy decision. Cowtowner (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist Not enough EV. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Questionable nomination as nominator unexplainedly replaced the image in the article. I think it's more suitable than the alternative now used.  Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added it to mushroom for now so that it's not delisted just because it's not being used, but I agree that it seemed very appropriate in the article it was removed from. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't keep images just because they've been slotted into an article somewhere. We keep images when they are used in a valuable way. PLW, yes, I removed the image from the article in which it was used (to which it was added by someone just to give it a home, not because it had any real value there) as part of a quick effort to clean up the article, which is on a subject I edit a lot. It's adding nothing to mushroom, where it's "just another pretty image"- we should not be adding images to articles to stop them being delisted, that is completely the wrong way to do things. Would you have added it there if it was not nominated here? Of course not- it adds nothing there, and it was not added with the intention of improving the article. I can't believe I'm having to have this conversation- why are people so scared of delisting images?! J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've swapped that image out for something actually related to the section in question... We shouldn't use images just because they're FPs, we should use images that are going to add to the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reason:In the collapsed discussion above, several opined delist while the image was not being used in an article. The image was added to an article later in the nomination, which I believe voids some of the votes, and also invalidates the closure as delisted.  I think it's fair to relist this.
 * Articles this image appears in: Mushroom, Transparency and translucency
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Backlit mushroom.jpg
 * Relister:  Mae din\ talk 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Adding nothing to mushroom, to which it was added purely so that it was being used somewhere. We should not add images to articles just so that they are in use in the article space- we should add images when they are adding something. Also, I don't think it is fair to unilaterally overturn a closure, especially without discussing it with the closer (if Makeemlighter said he was happy for this to be relisted, disregard this part of the comment...). If you feel the image should be featured, you shouldn't decide that the delisting was invalid, you should renominate it. If this genuinely is FP material, it'll pass there, will it not? J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I had forgotten to notify Makeemlighter of the relisting, I've done that now. I meant to notify you at the same time, sorry!   Mae din\ talk 11:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I haven't given opinion on either the mushroom's suitability for FP or its suitability in the article. I've only noted that the circumstances changed during the nomination and that votes should have been clarified before delisting.   Mae din\ talk 11:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps it would be easier to just contact those who opposed based on the fact it was not used in any articles ( in the first place to see if their opinions were affected? Then, if some thought it should be kept, it could be reopened or renominated? We're all aware of how many of these discussions close as no consensus, and that would not be a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a cleverly taken photograph of gills, and the only photographic example of them in the article, which I think is essential given that the majority of commonly encountered mushroom species have gills. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not display the gills in a particularly useful way. Sure, it's a pretty picture, and sure, it shows that this mushroom (whatever it is) actually has gills, but it doesn't really show what gills are or what they do. I've said this before- I'd love there to be hundreds of featured pictures of mushrooms. That doesn't mean I'm gonna support anything that comes along, and this one is adding nothing to that article- as has been said, it was added to that article so that it was used somewhere, not because it added anything in particular. The fact that it was forced back into the article (in a different place to where it was originally used) after it was initially removed from that article is somewhat telling. (Also, to reiterate, I do not feel that this discussion should be taking place in this format- someone cannot unilaterally reopen a discussion just because they do not like the outcome of the discussion.) J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about assuming good faith for five minutes? I think we can all see that Diliff's vote was based on the image not being used, if not a call to action. By the end of the debate, the image was being used, so the concern was addressed and that conditional vote fell, imo. Another vote was completely unspecific in its rationale and hence questionable. It's rare that we can close a debate with more than a borderline consensus of five delists (and kept ones are usually by "no consensus", which offers a variety of interpretations). Remedies have been discussed but no conclusion reached, partly because proposals get not responded to, and there's no collaboration (very sad). Perhaps you need to take a look at yourself and ask whether you frequently expect things to be served to you on a silver platter. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure what a lot of that is meant to mean, but you ask me to assume good faith, then immediately dismiss someone's vote as "questionable"? Right. Why are you so desperate to keep this picture? It has minimal encyclopedic value (people are still scrapping around trying to find some value- that hardly reeks of it being of great importance...) and the quality is low. This wouldn't pass today. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one clearly desperate to delist. Meanwhile, you haven't made a single substantiated argument, instead sticking to strong language - "scrapping", "reeks", "useless" - I've made a number of very good points for why this is worth keeping, but I'm not expecting you to change your firmly entrenched, bordering-on-political views, or indeed to step back from the discussion and accept someone else's viewpoint as legitimate. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm desperate to delist due to the lack of value, yeah. I've made my arguments clear; if you can't see them, you aren't looking. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist This image is not a good picture to illustrate gills. This image would perhaps fit well in the article backlighting (lighting design), if it didn't already have too many images. Further, I doubt the technical quality of the image would be sufficient to pass now at FPC. Sasata (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the third image there has more of a place than this one - none of the current images in that article illustrate backlighting with translucency as the key property. That said, I found that the applications section of transparency and translucency was unillustrated, and while it probably needs major expansion (article is very biased towards the underlying physics and chemistry, with applications as an afterthought), I think it provides a reasonable starting point. The article itself should probably be tagged with something between technical and unbalanced, but I couldn't find the perfect template for this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist does not clearly illustrate the gills, or really any part of the mushroom for that matter. Specimen also looks old/shriveled. de Bivort 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As Sasata has previously stated, these are ephemeral on a timescale of hours, and given where the sun has to be in the sky, I'd say this photo couldn't really be taken any other way unless we're talking about cultivating the species (doubt this has been tried, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't seen as good an image as this on WP of gills. I can't see any reason to delist it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * this is a WP image with better gills, even this non-FP. At least in these images it's possible to tell what's going on, shape wise. Besides, whether or not there is a better image on WP is not a sufficient criterion for promotion to FP. de Bivort 01:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist Weak delist. First I would like to say that it's a fine picture and well deserves it's FP status on the Commons. But the argumentation for its delisting seems very strong to me. As for the gills, this is not the best example by far (as pointed out by de Bivort). Also I find it hard to see the EV of the image, and since EV is crucial for WP-FPs, I think I must vote for delisting. --Priest zadok (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's now also used in transparency and translucency, perhaps you can offer some views on that? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to provide some illustration for the subject matter in question. Not being an unreasonable person, I'll change my vote to 'weak delist'. --Priest zadok (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delist - Adds a little bit to mushroom (the article already has an illustration of gills) and a tiny bit to transparency and translucency (why is it put in the Applications section?), but overall I don't feel like it has enough EV to be featured on Wikipedia. It is an excellent photograph, however, and could probably be featured on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist. Not a particularly strong candidate in any article IMO. The image that Debivort links to is a much better example of gills on a mushroom. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)