Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Monument Valley 2.jpg

File:Monument Valley 2.jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 19:09:55

•  Info Does not meet quality standards for FP. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- —Mono 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist -- —Christian Ferrer 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist /St1995 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep the FP-tag is and was simply a time stamp in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

 Question Can you clarify? I'm not quite sure what you mean from what you said. —Mono 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look here. Do you like still and continuously renominate all our FP images? This image was excellent in 2005, not today. The 2005 award says all. Please think about it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep I agree with Alchemist-hp. Imo we should stop delisting older FPs. These had been promoted for a reason, and we should honor and thus historicize that decision, especially if we can't agree with it anymore only due to technological developments. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist --A.Savin 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep I follow Alchemist-hp's und Martin's arguments. I don't see any sense in delisting old FPs for the reason that sensor technology was not as advanced as today. Will 16 MPs be enough in three years? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep As Alchemist; but only in cases like this, where the resolution would be the problem nowadays. --P e z i (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist Blur, and looks oversaturated to me. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist This is a tired debate and folk who don't believe in delist should seek to abolish it by consensus rather than disrupt the voting. Is this among the finest on Commons? No. Look at the Category:Monument Valley. When there are dozens of better pictures than this, then something is wrong if this remains featured. The only people who care whether a photo was featured in 2005 are the photographer, the nominator and perhaps a few voters. Nobody else gives a damn and would prefer if FP isn't cluttered by images kept out of vanity. Using the "sensor progress" argument is a fallacy, all that counts is what people take and upload to Commons. If the average photo that just anyone can take and upload is so much better than an FP like this, then who are we kidding? -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hard words. I didn't want to 'tire' anybody or 'disrupt' anything... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • But it is tiring to keep these debates for every delist. While we have a delist mechanism, votes here should be done in the spirit of that: that FP is the best on Commons, rather than a record of what was best at some point in time. This image is now among the worst on Commons. Please everyone take these other arguments to the talk FP page and debate there otherwise just abstain from delist voting altogether. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
      •  Comment ok, alright. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist Not convinced by the composition (overlap of foreground and background subject), slightly tilted, quality insufficient (independent of the year it was taken, since better resolution is possible with relatively inexpensive film equipment). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Julian (and others), can a non-appealing composition be an argument for delisting an FP? OK, you have other quality arguments, but imho delisting an image only because one does not like the composition is not sufficient. During an FP process you will always find reviewers who do not like one or another aspect (like composition, crop, motive). But as stated on the FP page, delisting is done because [o]ver time, featured picture standards change. The compositional standards have not massively changed but mainly the quality standards (over-exposure, resolution, advances in image editing software). Thus compositional aspects cannot serve as only delist reason. Delisting cannot be understood as second regular review just with different reviewers compared to the original nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • In this case, that doesn't matter because the other arguments are sufficient imo. In general, I don't know, but if (a significant amount of) people complain about a composition in a delisting-nom and didn't in the original nom, that tells me that the standards have changed, purely by observation. If that's not the case, it won't be delisted for that reason. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that delist is not just another FPC round and shouldn't be used as such (e.g., you think we made a mistake). But standards can change in all ways. We sometimes make allowances that are no longer justified. But let's kill this "sensor progress" argument dead. For a start, this image is actually a slide that has been scanned. Look at File:Monument Valley (4998504149).jpg, File:Evening in Monument Valley (4077440899).jpg, File:Cowboy (4013367806).jpg, and File:Monument Valley (3871718849).jpg -- all shot with a D80 (launched 2006) or File:Monument Valley, late afternoon Cropped.jpg short with a D70 (launched 2004) or File:Monument valley.jpg taken November 2005. Some of these would stand a chance at FP even today. The delist image has simply been outclassed by better pictures, not by just better technology. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist per Colin. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment We need not delist all old FPs due to the technical enhancement of today. But we have a lot of low quality FPs due to lack of enough contributors (work and reviewers) on that days. So IMHO, we can delist a few of them. Remember, "This formerly was a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and was considered one of the finest images." will still remain on a delisted picture. Jee 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Delist Sorry Huebi--Claus (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Keep I follow Alchemist-hp --Ralf Roleček 11:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Keep Colors are great, I think it is still good enough for FP. Michael Barera (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Keep -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 11 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Jee 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)