Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

behaviour on FP[edit]

In criticism of Poco, Colin uses 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language. Am I the only person who considers Colin's language and attitude threatening and offensive? Charles (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not. This language is not acceptable, as I have said elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know anything about processes here, but is this something that an independent admin would look at? Charles (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know which is worse, strong language or "making threats to upload fewer images or to downsize them all out of spite". The whole debacle is embarrassing to witness. Don't waste an admin's time with stuff like this again. --Cart (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, yes we value politeness, but we value truth even more. I have on several occasions told Colin that his language needs a bit of sanding down when it comes to both color and volume, so he knows that. But that does not change that what he says in this case is true, as stated in his summary below. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not enter into any discussion of the truth Cart of what was said. I complain about the language used. Charles (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin's language would be acceptable if he were a retarded teenager with English as a second language, but that it not the case. All his talk here is just a bad excuse. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are to discuss language, please do not use the word "retard" about any human. It is extremely insulting and not used that way in English these days. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly my point. I assume Colin has all his mental abilities, so his language is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, considering that there are in fact some users in the QI/FP community with mental disabilities who might read this, I think the use of such words should be avoided in general. Then again, English is not your first language. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrt to "Prima Donna", I'm referring to the essay "en:WP:DIVA" which says "This page in a nutshell: Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way". That is exactly what Charles and Poco have done. "Prima Donna" / "Diva" same difference. The only person "threatening" anything is you both. Yann is clearly still upset that his green-tinted photo is no longer used on any Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Charles didn't bother with diffs or context, the relevant page is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg where Poco says to Basile "Dear Basile, do you want to bring this ardous discussion to this FPC? As said again and again, what you cite is a recommendation. Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go?" Which is a statement that he is now deliberately downsizing his uploads and is threatening to go further. On the linked QI page Poco write "Dear Basile, from now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from this user (which was the only one, at least among the usuals), the community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal". Again, another threat that high quality full-size images are no longer being uploaded by Poco because Basile has voted oppose at QI. Charles, at talk QI, had earlier written "I will upload fewer widlife images of encyclopaedic value to Wikipaedia projects if the QI theshold is increased. Is that what the community wants?". Both examples of throwing toys out of the pram when it doesn't go their way. In both cases the threats have boomeranged. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The "diva-like" attitude of some high-end QIC/FPC contributors has been a real problem of Commons for a longer time now. Criticism on behavioural practices such as blackmailing, which are doing harm to Commons and its reputation, is justified. --A.Savin 15:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Please be specific. Can you please name the 'high-end QIC/FPC contributors' A.Savin that you allege have been blackmailing? Charles (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My goal is not to add fuel to fire by naming particular users, but to state that "diva-like" behaviour is not welcome here and its criticism is by all means legitimate. --19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Blackmail means "chantage" in French (and reciprocally chantage is "blackmail" on the Wiktionary). Translated definition : "Trying to threaten someone with something to extort benefits". Then yes, when Poco threatens the community to leave or to decrease the quality of his work if we refuse him the QI/FP status, this is chantage IMO. Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way. Wikipedia is not about you. (1) To be linked with Poco's blame / threat : "Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go ?"(2). Prima donna-like attitude can be frankly exasperating -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Empty threats[edit]

Cart notes above that we value truth, and I agree. When disputing something as petty as a QI badge or FP gold star, threats to stop uploading or to stop uploading large files are harmful. Those threats turn out to be empty.

  • Dear Basile, from now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from this user (which was the only one, at least among the usuals), the community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal. --Poco a poco 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, you already managed that I don't upload anymore images in full resolution in Commons, but please, stop your crusade and don't continously talk about violations, lies and death tolls. What for you seems to be the bible is for me a recommendation, and I'll act consequently. Poco a poco 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear Basile, do you want to bring this ardous discussion to this FPC? As said again and again, what you cite is a recommendation. Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go? --Poco2 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Between 25 November 2018 and 9 Februrary 2019 Poco has uploaded 37 very large stitched panoramas, and 20 photographs at the 50.32MP native resolution of his camera.

37 Panoramas
20 full size

On Poco's talk page 1st April 2017: This user gave up in March 2017 uploading new material to Commons. Poco was upset about various things. The notice is removed on 17 September. And from 19 March till 14 September 2017 no new photos are uploaded, though Poco continues to nominate at FPC and tweak existing photos to help them pass. Then in September, over 500 photos are uploaded, many of which are entered into Wiki Loves Monuments 2017. Poco wins two awards in Canada, seven in Spain, three in Croacia, one in Germany and one in Russia. Most of the photographs entered into WLM were taken during the period where "this user gave up uploading new material to Commons" though some were taken earlier. Wiki Loves Monuments requires images to be uploaded during the month of September 2017 and not before. So if Poco had uploaded any of those during his "strike", they wouldn't be eligible for WLM.

WLM Winners

Both Poco and Charles contribute a huge number of excellent photos to Commons. But Poco has now twice made false threats to stop uploading or to upload smaller files. And Charles disrupted the discussion at QI about minimum resolution by threatening to upload fewer images. In England, there is a saying: "That's just not cricket". -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, Colin, you do not understand the meaning of the word 'threat'. Please look it up. I made no threat. Stating I would upload fewer pictures is not a threat. No threat. No empty threat. Please apologise. Charles (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty threads? Colin:
Regarding my April-September break: I haven't been able to upload many images I took before or during that time, because the backlog would be too big. Of course, you only see what I upload, and not what I didn't.
I do downsize the panos but surely not down to below 50 MPx. To be honest, I didn't think about that, but I don't think that it would be necessary. And about those 20 images, I am surprised about that. It looks like I didn't pay enough attention. Will not make that mistake in the future. Thanks for pointing that out.
And again, I don't upload 50 MPx images, because the toughness I see in users when reviewing those images is the same as for 20 Mpx images, which are easier to take. Nobody here seems to understand that handling a 50 Mpx camera is not as easy as handling a 20 Mpx camera. So, what is then the point of uploading those images? I could also replace my camera but I am actually happy with it.
Regarding threads and so on Charles, to be honest, I don't take those "threads" coming from Colin seriously, nor I have the time Colin has time to write posts like the one above. I do have a demanding job, a family and a hobbies, mostly traveling and taking pictures, but not spending the whole day in pointless discussions. From time to time Colin is so kind to provide stats about my contributions and work here, I thank him for that :) Poco2 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha. Not funny at all. Because when a prolific user, who is also an administrator here, says something like "The community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal. From now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from me", that clearly suggests the neighbor is responsible for the self-sabotaged work of the speaker. That is just a disrupting blame. Such frustration is sad ("you only see what I upload, and not what I didn't"). But not our concern.
You can downsize (at home), freely, but be happy of that. Enjoy your creation in any case, don't throw reproaches to the users who do not recommend that. Just try to be proud of yourself and assume that Commons warns Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. You're free to disagree. Nobody else force the rules. We're here to improve, and after such a failure, you can only progress.
That is not true that downsizing your pictures helps your nominations (poor example here). And that is not true that users reviewing high resolution images are tough. See for example this imperfect bird : "Good composition, sharp at lower but still high resolution (5000 px large)". It means we're all able to express constructive critics without sanctioning the image.
The fact to spread lies harms the project. Saying "Out of the 25th November 2018 you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore", and when you check the facts it appears to be a lamentable hoax. Better to shut up. Dishonesty = time loss for everyone. Unreliability. Ha ha ha -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record, no real arguments here from Basile Morin that I could rebut. Fact is that my intention is not to upload any images with full resolution because of him. You can interprete that the way you want. The fact that some images slipped through is not a hoax but a mistake. As said, will definitely be more careful in the future. Increadible that in the meanwhile 2 users reporach to me that I've uploaded pictures in full resolution, maybe a reason te get me blocked. Ha ha ha. --Poco2 12:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lol -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco, since 25th November 2018, 1 in 5 of your photos are >50MP. That's not "some images slipped through". Considering that many images are cropped quite normally, I'd expect a large portion of your images to be naturally below your sensor size of 50MP. For example, a big number of images are >40MP, which suggests a modest crop. It really does sound like your threat was a hoax. Just like your spring/summer 2017 strike turned out to be a hoax too. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Colin, you managed your goal, you targeted me one day after the other and now I give up (cause -> reason). Good bye. --Poco2 19:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy your Wikibreak, Poco. See you in September. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Canon 5DS R - A special camera?[edit]

"Nobody here seems to understand that handling a 50 Mpx camera is not as easy as handling a 20 Mpx camera" -- Poco

Now Poco says his reason for not uploading 50MP is because reviewers pixel peep. Well I have long campaigned against that and have suggested various ways reviewers could choose to review a downsized version, such as by making use of a URL link (for example this is your bird at 2000px wide, 6.4MP). You are welcome to include such a link in your nomination and ask that reviewers use a 24MP version rather than the 50MP version. The new QI interface could also incorporate such a feature, if there was demand. This would permit you to upload at full size, and be judged at a modest size.

But let's examine this claim that Poco's Canon 5DS R is special and us ignorant reviewers are being unfair on him. This camera costs £2599. And the Canon 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L USM lens costs £2289. My Sony A77 costs £949 and 16-50 lens costs £499. Most of my lenses cost about £100-£200, whereas I guess most of Pocos cost over £1000. So Poco's got equipment costing many times more than mine. And the pixel pitch of that high resolution 50MP sensor is 4.13 microns whereas the pixel pitch of my modest resolution 24MP sensor is 3.88 microns. So, when it comes to pixel peeping, my sensor pixels are smaller than Poco's, and my optics are crappier than Poco's. And let's not forget Cart. Her Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 cameras both have a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns. That's nearly half Pocos's. A full-frame camera with the same pixel pitch as that would be 86MP. All of us APS-C, m43 and 1" sensor photographers with 20-24MP cameras have for years been at a greater disadvantage in terms of pixel peeping than Poco.

So, Mr Diva, when you decide to downsize all your photos because the reviewers are too hard on your fancy camera, my heart does not bleed for you. Poco, you are not a special case, you just think you are.

I am reminded of the debate in the UK House of Commons last night, where The Speaker said:

"Order!! I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to calm down. I say to very senior Members who, from a sedentary position, are chuntering really very inanely, do try to grow up."

-- Colin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging a camera only by the number of Mpx is like judging a car only by HP value or so. As for Canon EOS 5DS(R), its sensor has quite a high noise level (just like all Canon cameras, unfortunately). Downsizing 50mpx to 20-30 is sometimes necessary to make the image look crisp. I have no problem with that. It's only problematic if downsizing is solely to illustrate a point ;-) --A.Savin 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A Canon is only a very little noisy relative to a Sony or Nikon sensor of the same size/generation. The 50MP Canon may sound much higher resolution than a 36MP Nikon but it is only 18% higher linear resolution. If you compare Canon 5DS R with Sony A77II with Sony DSC-RX100 then you find that my Sony A77ii is twice as noisy as the Canon, and the little 1" Sony RX100 is six times as noisy. The difference between the Canon and e.g. a D800 is only about 1.3 times as noisy, which is not really important other than to fanboys. One simply can't escape the laws of physics: smaller pixels capture less light photons so are inherently noisier. And the pixels on all modern APS-C, m43 and 1" sensor cameras are smaller than the Canon 50MP camera. Really there is nothing special that permits Poco to justify downsizing all his images to avoid pixel peeping, while the rest of us upload what we shot. I think there is an argument for modest downsizing of large stitched images, and situations where light levels require high iso, or where the lens is far from resolving what the sensor does. But there is no argument for treating the 5DS R any different to any other camera. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"smaller pixels capture less light photons so are inherently noisier" -> yes, that's what it is about: two cameras with the same sensor size, one is, say, 24 mpx, the other 50 mpx. So, given the same sensor size (36x24 mm), the one with 50 mpix has much smaller pixels. This causes higher noise level (c.p.). That's why a 5DS(R) is an excellent choice for sunny day landscape/cityscape shots, but no good choice for night / blue hour / available light etc. --A.Savin 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A 50MP camera has only 1.44 times more linear resolution than a 24MP camera. The pixel pitch of a 24MP full frame camera is 5.95 microns, 1.44 times larger than the Canon 50MP. In tests, it is only 1.3 times worse for noise than a 24MP Nikon D750. That's really not a significant degree that would mean the camera is not a good choice for X/Y/Z. We're talking a third of a stop or half a stop difference in light. The reviewers try to make out that differences between cameras are greater than they really are. The 5DSR is no worse than any APS-C camera and better than any M43 camera in terms of light captured per pixel, and in testing is less noisy than any of those. Plenty folk here have cameras that are several generations older. And lenses that are orders of magnitude cheaper and more plastic. I'm essentially shooting with a 53MP "full frame" camera but always cropping the result down to 24MP APS-C size. So, nothing special about the 5DSR at all. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes but you have to add the fact that Canon is lagging behind Nikon+Sony wrt noise performance ;-) --A.Savin 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, fanboy :-), but not by very much. In fact I made a mistake: the pixel sensors are of course square so a 24MP FF camera has 2x the theoretical light gathering capability than a 50MP FF camera. However light is measured in powers of 2, so that only corresponds to a theoretical 1 stop benefit. And in practice the D750 is only a fraction of a stop better, according to DXO, than the Canone 5DSR. But at base ISO this is all beside the point in good light. The feature other than noise that affects pixel peeping is sharpness. And this is a function of linear resolution of the sensor and the quality of the optics. Here, we have already shown that the 5DSR is similar to a 20MP APS-C camera. But in terms of optics, the $$$$ full frame lenses kick my $$ plastic APS-C lenses into the dirt. No contest. And no grounds for complaint. If Poco wishes to swap his 5DSR and lenses for my A77ii and lenses, and gain all the supposed FPC pixel peeping benefits of my 24MP camera, I'd be more than happy. Nothing special about the 5DS at all. It's just an overgrown APS-C camera. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If it was up to me...[edit]

... I would gladly have the rest of this month without any comments on FPC. Just voting {{s}}, {{o}} or {{neutral}} and sign. Nothing else. Just to let things cool down a bit. But that is just me dreaming. --Cart (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We could give it a try. How about one week of voluntary commitment to abstain from comments? I'm in. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What makes FPC interesting in my opinion is the clever combination of an explicit vote (positive, neutral or negative) with a coherent comment. I would even enjoy more text sometimes to explain the supports (if we really want to improve something, that can be a direction) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you never feel like taking a break from arguing once in a while? Just to relax. Btw, this was not meant to be a vote, just some thoughts and certainly nothing permanent. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. "If it was up to me..." honestly, no. Probably we're not dreaming the same. Personally I enjoy FPC as it is, and think this project is working very well already. Others' reviews are always interesting. Often we agree, sometimes we disagree, but these consensus / divergences are valuable and educative only because they are reasoned and detailed. On the opposite to you, I would prefer comments without votes. But these small "rewards" coming with a promotion are good also, because they generate a motivation. In any case, the guidelines are there, and it's important for new participants to maintain the system logic and open. This is not our personal project, but a collective one. Launched in many languages. Concerning my vote, sorry it's not a support as you would probably have preferred -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I was expecting a conversation, not votes of any kind. Of course this is not our personal project, but a collective is made up of individual voices so we can always float ideas. Oh well, let's get on with the show. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conversations on the Project page often lead to significant improvements of our pictures with ✓ new versions uploaded (see last week 1, 2, 3, etc.) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could suspend FPC for a couple of weeks (no new nominations) to give everyone a break from it. Go vote at Photo Challenge instead, where there are no oppose votes at all, only degrees of enthusiasm.
FPC is not just a popularity vote, and oppose votes require a reason out of courtesy. So I don't really see how it could function without comments, particularly as some oppose reasons are nit picking issues (CA, tilt, dust spot, etc) that the nominator could fix [though one could well argue that if it is just a nit picking issue, one should support, but then without a comment there would be an opportunity lost to make a small improvement]. People need to see why an image is opposed, to learn what is judged acceptable here, and to improve all our critical abilities. Much as I find Basile frustrating at times, and disagree with his downsize vote for that image, he is sometimes right and after discussion minds are changed. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I know it was a radical and controversial idea, but hey: Would you expect anything else from me? Face-wink.svg The root of the idea was that we are free to comment at FPC to our heart's delight, but when there are users who take too wide verbal swings and the mood on the forum turns sour, it can be good to reflect on the system. Other ideas are of course equally welcome. --Cart (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Les discussions (au-dessus) montrent bien le manque de cordialité et de convivialité qui règne ici. Ce qui domine c’est la compétition et ce n’est pas agréable. À la vérité on ne peut absolument pas dire ce que l’on pense vraiment. Nous sommes réduit à parler poussière et dominante de couleur. J’ai l’impression de dire « désolé monsieur Vermeer, c’est trop sombre – Monsieur Turner ça manque de netteté – Monsieur capa vous avez vu l’état de ces photos du débarquement, on peut vraiment pas accepter ça ». Quand j’ai fais le classement de la rubrique ‘’Non-photographie media’’ je suis parfois resté très dubitatif. C’est très bizarre de passer d’un chef-d’œuvre d’un grand maître de la renaissance à une histoire de couleur de Cyclamen rose fluo. En regardant la mona-lisa je me suis dit « théoriquement on aurait du la refuser, ...trop de craquelures ». Basile nous sert le discourt convenue mais ça ne fait pas oublier qu’il a peu de participants, que le plus souvent les discussions ne sont ni intéressantes ni amicales et certainement pas stimulantes.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This would open all doors for revenge votes. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --A.Savin 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot not working?[edit]

Hi, It seems the bot should have closed this nomination (more than 10 votes and no opposition in 5 days). What's wrong? Yann (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done manually. The same situation was here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpg. Looks like question templates and striked out votes make bot confused. MZaplotnik(talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Striked votes are usually ok, but you never know which template might confuse the Bot. It's good to always keep an eye on your nom. Thanks for fixing it! --Cart (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FPC Bot not working[edit]

FPC Bot did not do its last two passes anywhere, so at the moment you will have to do with me as stand-in for the Bot (I'm thinking of adopting a Stephen Hawkins synth voice) and perform the tasks as listed on User:FPCBot#Parking. I would however like the Bot maintenance people Daniel78 and KTC to take a look at this and see how we can get this thing running again. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's not running. It's not running in the sense not that the bot fails on running, but that it's not been told to run at all despite nothing changing on the cron job. The crontab were moved from Trusty to Stretch a few weeks back, but it ran without problems for the last few weeks. Also got a couple of error message from puppet recently, but that was a week ago. I'll wait and see if it just starts running again. -- KTC (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok KTC, I'll wait with doing the Bot work and see what happens. People might have to wait for their FPs for a day or so, but I think that's acceptable. --Cart (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: I can always tell it to run manually (which I'll do in a bit), but obviously would like to know why the cron job isn't active. -- KTC (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You can experiment as much as you want. :-) The important thing is to get it going in the long run. We'll wait. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: The 21:00 job did run, but there's nothing for it to do thanks to your work earlier. Looks like the server just took a day off. Come back this time tomorrow and we can see if things are back to normal again. -- KTC (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
KTC: So the Bot did run and marked one nom for review. Let's hope it does its job and archive it on the next run, because that's what didn't happen the last time. Fingers crossed. Btw, shouldn't it have closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.06.21.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge.jpg as a fifth day feature today? --Cart (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: 21:30, 15 March 2019‎ + 5 days = 21:30, 20 March 2019. The bot last ran at 21:00 so wasn't quite five days yet. -- KTC (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
KTC, ah yes, you are right and it seems to be working ok now. Thanks for taking a look at it! --Cart (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima[edit]

Hi, File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal.jpg was featured in September 2018. However File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg was featured on the English Wikipedia on January 2019. Some people might think the second image is an improvement. Is it worth a new vote (Delist and replace)? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)