Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:African penguins.jpg/3

File:African_penguins.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2020 at 22:28:52
Visit the nomination page.

•  Info Delist reason: Far below FP standards – low resolution, oversharpened / contrast overdone, birds way too small and partially overexposed, unfortunate composition IMHO emphasizing the foreground. If nominated today, this would earn an FPX within minutes. (Original nomination)
•  Info This picture has already been tried to delist two times: [1] (majority for "keep") [2] (5 "delist" votes, no "keep" votes)
•  Delist -- Kreuzschnabel 22:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist Charles (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep - This isn't so bad to me. I think it's fine to keep it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• As well as the feet being cropped Ikan Kekek, the horizon is tilted. Charles (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Slightly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Bit hard for me to understand why you prefer this image over that one which you opposed. Well, matter of taste I fancy. --Kreuzschnabel 21:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't prefer it. That's a new nomination. If you intend for me to have the same standard for delists as I have for new nominations, I would probably propose for a majority of FPs promoted before a certain year to be delisted. But do you really want to take the time to do that? Therefore, I support only delistings which seem really obvious to me. Maybe this one should seem obvious, but does it matter? Nope. It will be delisted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delist Unsharp low-res picture, and furthermore, the white balance appears too yellowish to me. --A.Savin 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist --Ivar (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist This is not one of the finest images on Commons nowadays. Not by a long shot. --Peulle (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Pile-on delist per nom, A. Savin and Peulle. Since Wikimania 2018 we've had a lot better images of the Boulder Beach penguins; those of Paco's that we haven't promoted are nonetheless way better than this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment @Kreuzschnabel, Charlesjsharp, King of Hearts, A.Savin, Iifar, Peulle, and Daniel Case: I'm not sure if you're aware that after the last vote for removal the image has been edited quite a bit by Archaeodontosaurus. This is not the image that was voted on 3 times in the past. So just in case you missed that, maybe consider if a revert to this version would maybe change your vote? --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  CommentThanks for the hint. Indeed, the version pointed out is not quite as bad as the latest one, at least not that aggressively sharpened. Still I don’t think it’s more than QI as for composition as soon as the horizon tilt is fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 12:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • +1, the Archaeodontosaurus version is a decrease in quality and should be reverted ( Done now). But nonetheless, it's a low-resolution image and not FP by current standards. --A.Savin 12:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Question - Do you think we should remove the FP designation from all photos that are too low-resolution to pass now? If so, that should be done by a bot, because we're not going to want to spend time voting on every one of them individually, I would think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• This scenery is really not as interesting for me that I would say "still featured despite resolution". --A.Savin 16:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Oh come, Ikan. Even today we would feature an 800×600 px image if only it had tons of wow, wouldn’t we? The minimum resolution is a "should", not a "must". So what’s this talking about automatically removing all lo-res images regardless of their wow? OTOH, if you could make a bot to detect and measure the wow in an image and judge it against resolution, we could just close FPC down and let the bot decide on today’s nominations too within one second. Even more, we wouldn’t need nominations at all, just let the bot look over any freshly uploaded pic and feature it on the spot. Interesting idea :) --Kreuzschnabel 21:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, that made me laugh out loud. But in practice, very few of the FPs from back in those days would pass if judged by today's standards. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Delist Even in 2007 the consensus to keep this was not overwhelming, and in 2010 not a single voter supported keeping. If the resolution were twice what it is, I'd think again, but at this size there is no way it can any longer be considered one of our best, especially compared to Poco's panorama of Boulder Beach. That said, I agree with Ikan Kekek that we need to have a proper conversation about how we should approach the classification of FPs that are nowadays too low-resolution to pass. I wouldn't support a blanket delist of all of them, because some have unique visual interest or rarity mitigating their lower resolution, but we probably do need a more consistent approach than we have at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist In this case, yes. --Hockei (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist all technicalities aside, it's just not that great. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep Nothing wrong with this one. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Result: 12 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Cart (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)