Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal

•  Info Extremely blurry... very low quality. (Original nomination)
•  Delist – flamurai 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist — per nom. Lycaon (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist — per nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist agree --Simonizer (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist -- Ram-Man 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Very primitive compared to the other FP on this topic: Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Lycaon (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Agree... no longer meets the standards. – flamurai 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I disagree. More detail doesn't neccessarily mean that it's better. This one is more useful in thumb size. in smaller size and for overview purpose. So it has its scope. --norro 13:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (edit: --norro 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Are you sure? We are talking FP here, not Fthumbnail! Lycaon (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Usefull picture? sure! FP? No; as mentionned above, there is better images on the same topic --S23678 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 Delist, 1 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per norro. --Canislupus (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Normally I would overlook the size here, but this pales in comparison to Image:San Diego Reflecting Pond.jpg. Consider not only resolution, but the crop (this photo includes the shore on the bottom and a great deal of sky on top) and the "wow" factor. No reason to have two featured night shots of the same skyline when one is so far superior. I know it's sad to delist the first FP, but it really shows how far the community has come. (Original nomination; Previous dislisting attempt (never closed; no votes but nominator's))
•  Delist – flamurai 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom — Lycaon (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. --Beyond silence 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info It got featured in 2005 but looking at this image today makes me wonder if it still deserves the status it has. I especially dislike the overexposed sky. (Original nomination)
•  Delist I think that an average Machu Picchu image I have just uploaded from flickr is better or if it is too small, there are bigger but nicer Machu Picchu photos on commons.--Avala (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Blown sky. There are at least 10 better versions of this view on Flickr. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist see old delist nomination in history. Artifacted, CA, blown sky, marginal resolution. MER-C 13:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist -Simonizer (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Excellent location. Fortunately we now have images that were shot under better conditions. Durova (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep (the image on flickr is too small) --Böhringer (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist the image is too small and the quality too low. -- Ram-Man 11:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I think it is ok to keep it. Considering the low hanging clouds, the sky could and likely was gray, and thus properly exposed. Crapload (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep IMHO its the best Machu Picchu picture Basik07 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist above mentioned reasons. --Manco Capac (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist the best is unfortunately not good enough for FP. Lycaon (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 8 Delist, 4 Keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. --naerii 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Low resolution, noise... studio shots should be near-perfect to be featured. This isn't. (Original nomination)
•  Delist --– flamurai 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Too noisy. --MichaelMaggs 06:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Low quality. --Richard Bartz 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. MER-C 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist --Karelj 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist what a terrible noise... —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. Freedom to share (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 7 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Low resolution (<1MP). It's a great subject, but the standard for arthropod images has risen significantly since this was promoted. There are a number of active Commons photographers who could take a better photo of this subject. (Original nomination)
•  Delist – flamurai 04:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Now much too small. --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Agree on the size and the rised standards, but I can't send this bemedalled veteran to pension. Shows pollination very well. --Richard Bartz 09:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Have to agree with Richard. I remember how I was totally amazed when first looking at this picture and I still am. I think, we should keep it although it doesn't meet todays guidelines. --norro 08:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep -- Alvesgaspar 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep -- victorrocha 6:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Size is a non-issue for older FPs for me. The technologies were different back then. A downsample in 2004 and a downsample now are two different things. Stop picking on size if the image is good. Freedom to share (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I think even size should be an issue for older FPs, but within limits. A top quality 1024x768 photo should IMO still be kept anno 2008, but I doubt it will suffice anno 2010. Likewise I think 800x600 should be delisted nowadays regardless of quality. There has to be a limit somwhere. Lycaon (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep ~ Idiot (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Low resolution, depth of field. The standard for FPs of arthropods has risen significantly since this image was featured. (Original nomination)
•  Delist – flamurai 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. --Richard Bartz 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist --Karelj 18:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist --Beyond silence 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 6 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Info Resolution, harsh lighting, blends into background, shadow in upper left, no "wow" factor. Just looks like a snapshot to me. Compare with Image:Petrified forest log 1 md.jpg and Image:USA 09788 Petrified Forest Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, which is not featured. (Original nomination; Archive of previous delisting attempt)
•  Delist – flamurai 04:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom ... compared to this i think we can unconsidered delist this picture --Richard Bartz 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist -- Ram-Man 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist --Beyond silence 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist --Karelj 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist per nom. -- Korax1214 19:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist Know Nothing (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delist as per above Booksworm (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 Delist, 0 Keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]