Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Kiwi aka.jpg

Kiwi fruit
Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 00:46:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:Was replaced in article with higher resolution alternative, nominated here as a replacement.
 * Articles this image appears in:Kiwi (fruit) (formerly)
 * Previous nomination/s:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kiwi aka.jpg
 * Nominator: Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk)


 * Delist and replace &mdash; Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe a little light? Kiwis I've seen are almost invariably a bit darker than that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep original. Delist original, do not replace with initially proposed replacement; unsure about alt. The colours in the alternative do seem odd, and the composition is worse than the original. A higher resolution doesn't outweigh these defects IMO. This all came up in its previous nominatation too. --Avenue (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The final decision always rests with article maintainers, so to speak, which may or may not mean that if we keep it and force it on the article, it will just end up in another delist nom a few months down the line. Try the alt? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, on second thought I agree with delisting the unused original, but I still don't think the proposed replacement is FP material. I've changed my !vote above accordingly. I like the other alternative more, but it seems significantly different in that it is primarily a cross-section and doesn't present a range of views of the fruit. So I'm not sure if it is appropriate to treat it as a direct replacement. I'm no expert, but I think the species attributed to it in the article is correct (not the species in the filename), and that it's probably the Hayward cultivar. --Avenue (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist original, no opinion on the others right now. We can't keep an image that is not in use, and it is not the job of FPC to demand that the version of the picture we like has to be used. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist original based on it not being used. I agree that the alt's composition and colour balance is slightly inferior. Maybe it's worth bringing the discussion here to the talk page of the article so that consensus can be made on which image to go for. I'd withdraw the delist vote if it could be kept. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a note there. With 87 watchers, there's a reasonable possibility that one or two might respond. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the harm in delisting the original then nominating the new image for FP status the normal way. You could even run them concurrently. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why have two open noms where one suffices? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, as has been demonstrated, there are some who feel we should be delisting but are less sure about replacing. D&R should be for small, uncontroversial changes- if there's any kind of sentiment that the original should be delisted, but the replacement requires discussion, it should be given that discussion at a full nom. I'm not really fussed either way, but that just seems like the most sensible thing to me. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are 5 delist votes. Adam did not bold a vote, but he did "agree with delisting the original" - that counts in my book. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. That was Avenue. My eyes are playing tricks on me today. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and delist this regardless. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)