Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Zizina labradus-Butterfly-on-Rose SC,-EG-Vic,-23.2.2008.jpg

Delist: Common Grass-blue (2)
Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019  at 14:53:27 (UTC)
 * Reason:Not up to current FP standards
 * Articles this image appears in:links to the article(s) that use this image
 * Previous nomination/s:link(s) to the image's original FPC nomination, and any previous delist noms
 * Nominator: Charlesjsharp (talk)


 * Delist &mdash; Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - this contains the same information as File:Common grass blue.jpg (also up for delisting). At least one of the two images should be delisted, but the case for getting rid of this one specifically is not all that clear without a clearly better replacement. Both are used in the article. I prefer the other image, for what it's worth. MER-C 19:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Replacement is surely irrelevant if the images should not be FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but you'll find it a lot easier to delist FPs that have been superseded with better images (even if the newer images are not of FP standard). MER-C 13:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per MER-C, "I prefer the other image" as well. Bammesk (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the other image's background, but this one has more pixels. Bammesk (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist - Not up to featured picture standards, blurry and obscured body especially. Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some process related notes. Sorry in advance for the long wall of text! As far as the nom reason "Not up to current FP standards": A) if by "current standards" a nominator means minimum pixel requirement, then the reason section should say so, and my reply would be: it is a good reason when we have a higher resolution replacement, otherwise it is not (on its own and automatically) a good reason, because the number of pixels is an agreed upon consensus aimed at incremental improvement over time, I don't think it makes sense to delist each and every previous FP just because an WP:RFC ups the pixel consensus. B) if by "current standards" a nominator means issues other than minimum pixel requirement, then a nominator should provide some hints in the nom reason, so each individual reviewer doesn't have to chase and guess it for themselves. Also, Charles, please fill out the nom fields above so each reviewer doesn't have to go through multiple clicks to see where/if the image is used in articles, and why it was supported or opposed in previous noms. Bammesk (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought I was doing the FP project a favour by delisting, but it's too time-consuming if one has to fill in lots of fields. Not up to current FP standards = quality standards, not size. For me, one click on the image should be enough to agree delist. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * About "it's too time-consuming", 5 votes means 4 reviewers have to go through the "time-consuming" steps, instead of just one nominator. I think that's why the fields are there. About nom reason: words like "focus", "saturation", etc. equals less time consumption for reviewers, and no time consumption for nominator (specially when the file is less than 1500px). Yes you are doing the project a favor, however, leaving volunteer reviewers in the dark and expecting them to do the footwork is a bad idea. Bammesk (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to delist the current featured picture. As the image is still used, it can retain that status. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)