Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg

Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki

 * Reason:While this is unquestionably an irreplaceable image, it isn't unrestorable. This image is in pretty bad shape and I'm surprised it passed in 2007. I would suggest that this be delisted until it is restored, then renominated. It can definitely be renominated after some Photoshop TLC.
 * Previous nomination/s:First (failed) nom in Sept 2006, Second (successful) nom in Aug 2007
 * Nominator:  wadester 16 
 * Informed nominators: 2006 nominator, 2007 nominator
 * Strong delist and replace Wadester16 has been learning photoshop and had a go at this file to remove the easily-removable scratches, dust, and hairs. He would appreciate consideration of replacing the current FP rather than only delisting it. He will now stop referring to himself in the third person.  wadester 16  08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Strong Delist &mdash;  wadester  16  03:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist & replace I don't think there was any effort in restoring it.  Zoo Fari  04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I now see some effort, it is still not the quality we want and I don't think we will obtain it. High EV, but just an unfortunate misquality. I would say nominate at VP, but you people are just too peevy about it so I say delist, replace, and send it on its way.  Zoo Fari  20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist Definitely not FP quality. If someone restores this, I'd support replacement without it having to be renominated. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist and Replace Replacement looks much better. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Restoration is not a featured picture requirement; encyclopedic value is.  This is one of the highest ev featured pictures at this website, and it's up for delisting over a handful of scratches?  Nominator overestimates the feasibility of restoration.  This is a photo of the bombing of Nagasaki shot through the window of a long range bomber.  Window reflection is an inherent part of its encyclopedic value, and presents quite a challenge to restore--especially since it appears no high resolution uncompressed version of the photograph is actually available.  First, do no harm; WP:SOFIXIT if you can.  Durova Charge! 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, good point. Sure, it is extremely encyclopedic, but what about quality? I'd see this photo better at VP for such conditions it is in. FP is not all about EV, unlike VP, so I will change to keep when I see some effort in it.  Zoo Fari  19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above comments regarding the technical challenges of restoration and the unavailability of high resolution uncompressed versions. You are welcome to attempt a restoration also, if you wish, and to consult me for advisement during your work.  This is one of the highest ev images at this website, and First, do no harm. (apropos of nothing, I reviwed this many months ago and decided restoration was not advisable under these circumstances.  In all likelihood I would not support my own work over the current FP, but am willing to be persuaded by superlative work by an enthusiastic novice).  Durova Charge! 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the window reflection (which I didn't even notice until you mentioned it) or the technicals that bother me; it's the effects of age: scratches, dust, marks, hairs, etc.—all reasonably fixable by a relatively skilled hand in photoshop. Remember, these FPs were nominated way before VPC existed, and passed mainly (in this case only) on their EV. Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them. I'd fix either of these if I could; but I have no experience nor time to learn how to restore at the level you do. We aren't doing harm; maybe this will be a saving grace for the VPC program.  wadester 16  05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges of restoration is to notice that sort of thing, and to anticipate in advance how those factors interact. Sure, there are few obvious scratches that would be easy to get at, but that approach dead-ends in an hour if one doesn't anticipate the hard parts.  And the significance of the window view is lost unless one researches the background: the B-29 airplanes used on this mission were the most advanced long range bombers available, and the Nagasaki mission nearly ran out of fuel:
 * Kokura was the primary target, but when Bockscar arrived at its rendezvous point off the coast of Japan the third aircraft of its flight (the photo ship Big Stink) was not present. After fruitlessly waiting 40 minutes, Sweeney and Bock proceeded to Kokura but found it obscured by clouds. Sweeney had orders to drop the atomic bomb visually if possible, and after three unsuccessful passes over Kokura, conferred with weaponeer Commander Frederick Ashworth (USN). They agreed to strike the secondary target, Nagasaki.[7]


 * A combination of factors including confusion about a malfunctioning transfer pump made fuel consumption a critical factor. Ashworth did not want to be forced to dump the bomb into the sea and decided to make a radar bombing run if necessary.[8] However, enough of an opening appeared in the cloud cover to allow Bombardier Kermit Beahan to confirm Nagasaki and the bomb was dropped, with ground zero being about 3/4 mile from the planned aiming point.
 * In other words, the delays that were necessary in order to get a visual drop also meant the airmen barely managed to survive the mission without getting captured. Abandoning their original rendezvous point at Iwo Jima, they flew to Okinawa instead.  And were almost out of fuel when they landed at the Okinawa airfield.  Now if you'd like to try your hand at restoring this it might be a good exercise.  And I'd help out.  It could be a good exercise to see how much research and hard work really go into historic restoration.  Durova Charge! 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The history is extermely interesting, but it's not like the window reflection tells that story; it only shows two windows in the background and no other identifiable information. And you don't need that story or the reflection to know the image was taken from a plane. I believe the image would be better without the reflection, but it's tolerable given the rarity of the photo. That said, while restoration isn't a requirement, it's most certainly become an expectation. This image could easily sit happily at VP until somebody takes on the scratches and dust and can then be re-nom'ed at FPC.  wadester 16  17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Restoration may not be a requirement but high quality is. And this picture just doesn't meet the quality standards. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Criterion 5: A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value. Durova Charge! 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Artistic value ≠ image quality.  wadester 16  17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Took the words right out of my ... fingers. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder - and hope I'm wrong - that there are more personal issues that cause Durova to oppose. Firstly, I contacted her a month and a half ago about restoring this very image, considering how many other photograph restorations she has done. Her response was not "this image should not be restored" but rather the apathetic but accepting "Can't make any promises when I'd get around to it, but thanks for the pointer." So when wadster restores it, it becomes unaccpetable? Furthermore, Durova's argument is littered with red herrings. First the window reflection (which wadster left in place), than the history of the flight (which oddly omits how dust and hair got on to the film)...it does not make any sense to me why the extraneous elements, which (unlike the reflection) were added after the image was taken, should not be removed. Their removal is not art, it is to add to, not detract from, the EV. I'm hoping Durova hasn't been as underhanded as some of this evidence suggests to me, but her argument has been rather inconsistent, which is to say, nonexistent.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or replace Do not really care one way or the other, but surely one of the images should be FP IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep Replace —  Jake   Wartenberg  23:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see this as an FP or a VP? I believe the fact that the argument against it being delisted boils down to EV. But that's not all FPC is about; on the other hand, that's mainly what VPC is about.  wadester 16  04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the encyclopedia and not commons. Encyclopedic value is at the very core of this process. Sedd&sigma;n talk 01:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The replacement looks good, though. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Procedural strike of duplicate vote.  Peter Symonds ( talk ) 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) --GerardM (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Revisiting the past is in itself problematic. Revisiting them with just technical criteria is not that good an argument.


 * Keep - per User:Durova Rlendog (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without hesitation. Sedd&sigma;n talk 01:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If you can make a better version of this image fine. However until then this unique image of a historical event should remain featured. Chillum  15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Note the proposed replacement.  wadester 16  16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the proposed replacement, in several places tiny specks have been replaced with larger blurry spots. I think we should stick to the original until a less invasive touch up can be performed. Chillum  04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just following orders. I'm not experienced, but I tried, and I think I did an okay job.  wadester 16  07:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Durova. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the notion of requiring the same quality of digital images for all pictures is threatening our ability to attract historic material. GerardM (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So there's inherently something wrong with removing easily-removable scratches, dust, and hairs that have nothing to do with the original photo or the contents of the image? If it can be fixed, I believe it should be (again, not the content, the crap on top of the content).  wadester 16  00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gerard said nothing of the sort. Chillum  16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Durova. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Durova Spiral5800 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace: Replace current FP with Wadester's restored version.  Mae din \talk 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed my vote above to reflect addition of a replacement. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because I feel that the sole purpose of this nomination is to make a point, not because of violation to the criteria. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think my "point" is? I believe it doesn't meet the criteria and I've offered a cleaned up version.  wadester 16  04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Replace Yes, the window reflection is part of the EV, and I oppose removing it. But dust, scratches, hairs, etc. were added later and detract from the EV; they were not present on the plane.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And may I ask how a window reflection puts EV into this?  Zoo Fari  01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is a photo of the bombing of Nagasaki shot through the window of a long range bomber. Window reflection is an inherent part of its encyclopedic value..." ~Durova; see also the next post.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

with File:NagasakibombEdit.jpeg -- Zoo Fari  22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - per . Warning: the following is partly a rant. In my humble opinion, this nomination is ridiculous. Scratches, hairs, dust, etc. are one thing, although I'm not sure if a few here or there really matter... Taking out what was part of the original image is entirely different. Removing the window reflection did/would unacceptably alter this image. I don't care if things not present in the original are removed, but this anathema against something that was in the unaltered original scares me; how many other images have had content from the original edited out in an attempt to reach the sky FP's current technical needs? Anyway, 99% of historical photos, for obvious reasons, do not and cannot approach the quality of digital imagery; perhaps the criteria should be split, with one part addressing digital images and the other addressing non-digital images. Apologies to all if I have misinterpreted something in this. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This delist and replace nom was regarding the easily-removed hairs and scratches. Nothing was said about the reflection until Durova brought it up. Note the differences between original and proposed replacement: only scratches, hairs, and dust are missing. The reflection (or original content of the image) isn't the point and never was. Maybe you should bring this up at WT:FPC, where it's more relevant.  wadester 16  21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 99% is quite exaggerating. The window reflection wasn't brought up by the nominator, and there is not assertion for it to be removed (if so, I'd like a diff). Don't see how Durova or Shoemaker's holiday's boycott fit into your description.  Zoo Fari  21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, apparently I did misinterpret something, except that I didn't imagine it would be this big. :-) I was under the impression that the window reflections were removed in the proposed replacement; it would have been easily fixed if I had just looked at the bloody image, but for whatever reason I did not. My apologies to wadester. 99% was meant as an exaggeration, as digital image does not automatically mean that it is high quality. My comment about Durova and SH was meant as an aside, I'll remove it as it really has nothing to do with what I said. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong replace The restored version is superior, full stop. We don't need all those nasty dust and hairs ruining what would otherwise be an unequivocal featured picture. The restoration is not a compromise to the picture's encyclopedic value. Reguiieee (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you had previously made your opinion known and !voted earlier in this, shouldn't someone uninvolved have closed this...? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I think the nominator shouldn't close it. My opinion was not the result, I only followed the consensus.  Zoo Fari  00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted to original more consensus for keep than replace, proposed restoration incredibly sloppy, changing the shape of the clouds in dozens of places. This is simply not appropriate manipulation. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that there is a deletion debate on Commons about the edited image; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NagasakibombEdit.jpeg. — Ed17   (talk  •  contribs)  19:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)