Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/mouse

Mechanical mouse cutaway

 * Reason:Falls far short of the resolution requirements, and some parts are a bit grainy (the shadow).
 * Nominator: Reguiieee (talk)


 * Delist until there is an SVG version Keep &mdash; Reguiieee (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist photo used for mouse is out of focus & not an excellent diagram, just mediocre, it could be redrawn into a much better svg Thisglad (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasting your time This is silly. Go CREATE SOMETHING instead of wrangling to pull stuff down. I don't see history for either one of you - Reguiieee, Thisglad. Is this your job here to be non-contributing critics?! Drama. (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: I am NOT trying to assert that I know better than everyone else. I am NOT demanding anyone to follow my opinions. This is a democratic process that represents a wider judgment. I am willing to accept my own mistake; please do not insult me. Reguiieee (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. My apologies on the emotion here. It becomes very frustrating, though, when I pour a great deal of effort into this project only to have the work dismissed without a viable alternative. Got something better? I bow to the improvement. But saying something does not meet "a standard" just irritates. I suppose you could say that your criticism is a form of contribution... I am curious what you mean by "resolution requirements" and need a reference here to guide me. I am very willing to improve this image - bear in mind that it did take me about 20 hours to complete. Can you give me a little more detail here about graininess and how you would improve the SVG portion? And, alas, I seem to have misplaced the mouse image file and will have to recreate that entirely. (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a link in the original nomination to the Featured picture criteria which explain the "resolution requirements". Criterion 2 states it should be a minimum 1000px in the shortest dimension. While this was probably promoted prior to this requirement, this does fall well short of this 'standard', at only 530 x 436px. Re the graininess, if you look at the photo parts, especially visible in the shadowy area, you'll see that it looks 'speckled' rather than smooth. I think the issue here is more to do with the original mouse image you have used, which is small, grainy, and not well focussed, so not having that is possibly not such a problem, as I think you'd really need a better photo to base it off. I assume you still have the drawn SVG part? If so, would it be hard to combine that with a better quality mouse photo to meet the concerns? You might be able to find a suitable photo on Commons that you could use. Don't know, just trying to help :-). --jjron (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - I found and and added that link to the resolution reqs. The image needs to be refurbished. (image creator) jk (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Fully agree with jk. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * is that a valid reason to keep, perhaps you should clarify what exactly are you agreeing with? Thisglad (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the SVG version, Thisglad? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There can't be... not with a photograph of the mouse... gren グレン 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thisglad seems to be offering one. I think he should provide. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood what I wrote, maybe you should read it again, I did not offer to draw a SVG illustration of the mouse parts depicted in this blurry photograph, although I said it was possible considering we have much more detailed SVG diagrams than this, in spite of the fact that this is based on a photograph, the quality of the photography is not featured quality Thisglad (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understood quite well. Unfortunately, we can't do a delist and replace until we have something to replace *with*. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep big enough and good enough. I'm not sure how much a larger version would help but I see no reason to delist. gren グレン 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's perfectly legitimate to vote "delist" without proposing a replacement. Thisglad clearly wasn't offering a replacement, simply that he thought that a better version could be produced. Pstuart84 Talk 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is perfectly valid to question the purpose of an exercise that clearly is not improving the encyclopaedia, but instead wasting contributors' time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) If you think it's wasting contributors' time, no-one's forcing them to join in; (2) you can question the purpose but it seemed like you were harassing thisglad for a perfectly reasonable delist vote; and (3) you say it's not improving the encyclopaedia, but the delist process serves to raise the average quality of the collection of featured pictures. There's been quite a bit of goading by users on FPC lately when the spirit can and should be positive and constructive. Pstuart84 Talk 20:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying they shouldn't join Wikipedia? Are you asking people to leave? Or are you saying we should just abandon the community spirit and leave all the delisting to you, while others slave away trying to create content, that you, our Fuehrer, consider good enough? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we retain some perspective here please? I don't think WP:CIVIL is a bad place to start and this Führer stuff is pretty inflammatory.  You throw around bold assertions like "an exercise that clearly is not improving the encyclopedia" and resort to cheap insults when someone takes issue with the claim. Pstuart84 Talk 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're being very keen to defend a questionable practice that you are one of the main protagonists of. You should have expected questions about your behaviour to be raised, especially when you suggest that people should entirely abandon the thin veil that some people mistake for democracy around here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please identify the "questionable practice" that you say I'm engaged in and my "behaviour" about which you say questions need to be raised? Perhaps you could provide some diffs? Pstuart84 Talk 10:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your main effort at FPC is directed at demoting images. It seems that you feel elevated when you can find a flaw in something someone else has done. Let me tell you, that kind of attitude is highly injurious. Every time you nominate an image for delisting, a content contributor gets hurt, gets upset, and may end up hating you and others expressing support for the motion. Some of these people will reduce their efforts in content creation. In addition to that, some of those who expressed opinions in favour of an image at its original nomination may feel that the effort they took in judging the image and coming to a balanced judgement is being overturned. Add to that all the people participating in previous delist discussions, if there are any. The individuals contributing to this project are about the only resource that we have. You diss their work, you kill the project. Think about it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we got there in the end. If you think my main effort here is delisting images, then you should look at 2 years worth of contributions, rather than what you've seen in the three months you've been here.  There's nothing wrong with engaging in the delist process - standards change and images can be delisted without anyone's feelings being hurt (and there's certainly no intent to hurt feelings).  Indeed, you've voted to delist images in the past:, .  It's part of the project and noone deserves to be harassed and insulted for taking part. Pstuart84 Talk 14:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The delicate theme of this delist discussion, as I've tried to explain to you, is who is harassing whom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While the specific mechanical issues referenced here are valid (SVG format and resolution), the picture is also listed because of the concept of the image; what it teaches and illustrates. Though I was put off by the insult F-word above, I agree with the spirit of PLW's argument here. Critique takes vastly less energy than creation. It must be done with a great deal of care and consideration and concrete arguments. If you review your contributions to the 'pedia, you might reconsider your focus if you see that MOST of your energy is going toward reducing the offerings vs. increasing them. This is a vast resource for the large community of educators who rely on right-free imagery, for instance, and even marginal work serves a public good. Now let's wrap this discussion and go out and BUILD STUFF! (image creator) jk (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist This should be a SVG diagram with text labels. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to make vast improvements on.  Cacophony (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My goal in using the numbers was to allow for easier localization. Is it better practice to require the editors in other languages to dig into the image file itself to translate? (The image creator) jk (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Here is another example of this technique:
 * Delist If this was being nominated for FPC now, rather than as a delist, I am 99% certain that it would get unanimous opposes, citing the low resolution and dithering.  Apart from that, one of the questions I ask myself when looking at FPCs is, "Would I be disappointed if I saw this as picture of the day on the main page?" (I know it's not one of the official criteria, but it is useful).  In this case, I'm afraid the answer is a definite yes.  Compare it to something like Image:Personal computer, exploded 6.svg which has been nominated above and seems to be going for not featured (0 Support, 3 Oppose).  Time3000 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently still falls under the best WP has to offer and still an adequately good image to be featured. Cat-five - talk 03:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)