Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Deepwater oil spill 5-24-10

Gulf of Mexico satellite image - Deepwater spill
Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2010 at 03:00:48 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is featured, but it's no longer used on the article, it seems to have been replaced with the one below it, we might as well just replace it. I actually prefer the small excerpt map, it adds educational value by giving the viewer more visual info about the location.
 * Articles this image appears in:None, (Deepwater Horizon oil spill)
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg
 * Nominator: I'ḏ  ♥  One


 * Replace &mdash; I'ḏ  ♥  One  03:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source of the (source of the) inset map is unclear, so the copyright status of this combined image is too. (The fact that its uploader confused "topographical" and "topological" doesn't fill me with confidence, and nor do the hand icons in various places around the map, but maybe that's unfair.) --Avenue (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I contacted the uploader of the map on Commons, so we wait... -- I'ḏ ♥  One  15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, clearly, as it is not in use. I am not wild about the replacement, and I suspect that others are not, hence the lack of votes. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the map insert is just ugly. --Ephemeronium (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the point- we really can't keep it, as it is not in use. If the original is not in use, and the new version is not suitable, then delisting is the only option. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about the added education value? You don't think it looks good on the article? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh boy, a replace vote, a delist vote, a copyright query and a keep - Looks like it might get saved by impasse. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No one with any respect for FPs generally would keep the original, as it is not in use in the article space. That's simply not an option at this time. J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the map insert really needed? We don't have them on other satellite images. And in the article, its purpose of a lead image is not to give an exact indication of context, and there's another map down the page doing just that. Hence it becomes a question of which deserves inclusion in the article. --Ephemeronium (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that that's the main issue remaining. Is this the right venue for it, though? My understanding is that FPC generally defers to the decisions made by editors of the article in question. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is certainly not the venue for that discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This should probably be suspended until the commons editor has a chance to comment. Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that they have a notice on their talk page saying they've left in a huff, their last edit in 2009 was to delete notices about the sourcing of similar maps, and their previous edit was in 2007, I don't think we should hold our breath. --Avenue (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The inset is a demis map - the documentation it should have is at http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/DataSrc.htm Kmusser (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it would be better with a zoom effect, where the photograph is not partly obscured by the map (i.e. map placed outside photograph) - this is a bit closer to what I'm thinking of. I think a placement of the overview map above or below the photograph would make most sense given the dimensions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not enough delist votes. I plan to raise this issue on FPC:Talk since the current FP is unused. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not in use at the start of the nomination, it is not in use now. The image unambiguously and uncontroversially fails our criteria. It should be delisted, whether enough people said the magic word or not. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)