This is an archive page for featured picture status removal debates. These debates are closed and should not be edited. For more information see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Comment I think this new restoration has gone too far and deviates too much from the original. I quote what I wrote on another nom: "Many issues in the photo could be fixed with today's programs, but I think you should only go so far with restorations. I like the original photo to be preserved as much as possible for a historic FP. Making too wild edits and you end up with an image that is more "based on a photo by" than a restoration. (Like when filmmakers make movies "based on a novel by Xxx..." and re-warp old classic stories to fit the modern narrative.)" Cart(talk)17:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed any denoise (because film grain is not noise) and also any AI reconstruction, applied a white balance taking the color of the computer as a reference. I also removed a lot of dirt from the original film, leaving the details present intact. I think that although this photo does not look yellowish (due to the wear and tear of time), they are more representative colors and a more respectful restoration. Wilfredor (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comment above. Also per what Wilfredorwrote on Commons FPC about this new version: "My restoration aims to show how the scene actually looked at that moment, not how a photo taken in the 80s appeared." It's a noble intention, but that's not how restoring photos works. We don't have time machines to go back and see exactly what the scene looked like in 1984 to compare. The work of the original photographer should be respected. Cart(talk)09:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, what I did was remove stains and dirt, and also remove the yellowing from the negative. Please, could you be more specific and say which of these two things I did do you disagree with? Thanks for your feedback Wilfredor (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With photo restorations, there is a such a thing as cleaning up too much. Also, removing so much yellow component from this photo was a bit misguided. The tif was taken from a color slide (not a negative) and such film doesn't age and yellow as quickly as the paper prints that restorations often are made from. Color fade/(desaturation) is a more common problem. (I have color slides that my grandfather took some 50-60 years ago and they show not a hint of yellowing.) The color in the "old" version was graded by Janke (who is a professional film maker, and owns a Mac 512K) to match the actual original color of the Mac in the photo. I think we should defer to his expertise. Cart(talk)10:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and taking the time to respond, I agree with you, but I have one question, raising the shadows resulting in an error in the red border around the hands wasn't a very big alteration away from the original? Wilfredor (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The halos were not from raising the shadows, just a byproduct of converting the tif to jpeg and overall brightening of the photo. They already existed in the tif, but became augmented. Today I might have done that differently, but it was not challenged by reviewers so I have to live with it. Cart(talk)11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I say on Commons, Wilfredor's version is brighter, and has more cleaning of spots and scratches, so Apple may rather choose it for marketing purpose. But is it faithful to the other original? It is another question. Yann (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original mac color was not yellow, The typical yellowish color is due to the passage of time, the negative or photo ages and turns that color, coinciding with the color that computers also acquire. I am particularly against this yellowish color and I consider that it is part of the restoration to eliminate it. Wilfredor (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the original photo (the color slide) had yellowed with age, changing the color of the Mac, as you claim could have happened, how come that the collar of the shirt Jobs is wearing in the photo is still white? Shouldn't that part of the photo have turned yellow too? Even burned out highlights in a photo on a medium (film, paper, whatever) that has yellowed with age have a yellow tint.
You might also want to take a look at the article about the color of early computers, where you can read that Macs didn't turn desaturated gray until 1987, three years after this photo was taken. Cart(talk)22:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you're correct. Apple's choice of the warm, desaturated gray known as 'Platinum' was a significant shift in their design philosophy. This color, part of the iconic Snow White design language crafted by Frog Design, was introduced between 1987 and 1990. It marked a departure from the previous generation's 'Pantone 453' beige tone that adorned Apple II and early Mac products. The Platinum hue not only endured throughout the 1990s in Apple's product line but also set a trend, widely emulated by competitors and still visible today. The initial preference for beige was influenced by the Apple I's typical wooden housing, with beige offering a more refined look compared to brown. However, the early production process of Apple Beige, involving hand-painted plastic cases, led to inconsistent coloration and visible variations, particularly after hand sanding. This lack of uniformity was unacceptable to Steve Jobs, who insisted on enhanced production quality. The original plastic used tended to develop an orange tint over time, due to the combined effects of UV light and heat. This prompted Steve to challenge Jerry Manock, the chief designer, to develop a more stable and high-quality beige. The chosen Pantone 453 color for the 1983 Macintosh 128k also faced its challenges. Yes it was designed to resist heat, but these machines are now often seen with a yellowed appearance. This yellowing is not due to heat but to UV light reacting with bromide flame retardants in the ABS plastic. FYI, it's possible to reverse this yellowing in these vintage machines using the 'Retrobrite' process, restoring them to their original Platinum glory See more. Seeing images of the original color I can conclude that Apple Beige is not yellowish Wilfredor (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2024 at 01:06:16 (UTC)
London skyline from the banks of the Thames
Reason
This photo is being used for copyleft trolling by the photographer, David Iliff. Legal threats related to this image can be viewed via the following links: [1][2][3][4][5]. This copyleft trolling is ongoing, per David's talk page and recent discussions on Commons. In the interests of protecting our reusers from more legal threats, we should not be featuring it.
Delist — Unless David agrees to desist legal threats against good faith reusers and give them an opportunity to correct any attribution errors before demanding compensation (or switches the file license to CC 4.0 which effectively precludes predatory behavior). Nosferattus (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the frustration here, but this is not a criterion, no? It reminds me a little bit of the famous macaque selfie, which led to a takedown notice sent to Wikimedia. Ultimately, the consensus was clear that if the free license (or in that case public domain status) was valid, then criterion #4 was fulfilled, regardless of the controversy. Featured Pictures celebrates the image, not the image-maker. blameless02:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first photo should be delisted and Alt 1 is still in pretty bad quality so oppose both, and the 2005 explanation that "it is old, but so is the Colosseum" being poor reasoning which would definitely not pass in 2024. However, I think the photo has great potential and if a higher quality photo like a scan from Google Arts Project ever comes out, there is a chance it could be restored and I would support it. Wcamp9 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep. FP criteria 1, 2, 3 have exceptions for historic photos, also criterion 5 says "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value". This being a 1849 photo of a very notable person qualifies I think. I would support a "delist and replace" when a better version becomes available. Bammesk (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rectangular version has long been extant and is widely used in publishing internationally. (Note: Chopin, one of the most prolific & influential of composers, was only 39 when he died of TB. Also, the bookcase in Alt. 1 is distracting.) – Sca (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — Below the current pixel target on both axes and blurry up close. As the alt shows, these aren't artifacts of the original photo, this is just a poor transfer. I'm not impressed by the alt, either, it's also a crop and I think the contrast is too much. This version shows a more complete version of the photo than either, but it's too dark and much too small. Moonreach (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible second photo-portrait of Chopin
Delist and Replace with Alt 1: Considering its historical value, I believe the poor quality can be excused. However, I believe it is worth mentioning that a second photo exists which likely shows Chopin.[1] ―Howard • 🌽3318:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues with that one, too. Firstly, the metadata page has a claim that it's not a photo at all but a crop from a painting, with a link to the alleged painting. Secondly, our copy doesn't match the one in the CBC article and has many strange details that make me wonder if it's been AI-upscaled from this copy. Moonreach (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, I think. Many of the quality issues mentioned (grainy and blurry) are to be expected from an 1849 daguerreotype--this is not the era of Mathew Brady a decade or so later when there were nice standardized glass plates. There are other issues with the scan and crop, but those would best be addressed with a d&r, and there needs to be another version that can get consensus, which there doesn't seem to be yet. I am hoping that a better scan of this photograph (the other possible photos of Chopin are all of contested authenticity as well as lesser quality) will emerge, and then perhaps a restored version can be brought to FPC for a delist and replace. For now, I don't see a strong need to delist this one, which is of obvious historical importance. blameless05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2024 at 11:17:40 (UTC)
Vertumnus, a portrait depicting Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor painted as Vertumnus, the Roman God of the seasons, c. 1590-1, with anatomical details represented by vegetables and fruit.Proposed replacement
Reason
Replaced with higher resolution image. (Nominator not notified as she is deceased.)
Comment Back in the day there was a large image viewing tool that I'm not seeing now. The pink warning message doesn't offer a way to view the image full-sized. Brandmeistertalk14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2024 at 08:27:40 (UTC)
The current FPProposed replacementEdited version
Reason
The current FP was promoted about 16 years ago, and still is a good one. But there is a better file with sharper and higher res scan of the original, that is already used in the main subject article as lead image, as well as multiple other important articles. The proposed replacement is also the one closer to the original colors of the painting.
Delist and/or replace any version — Once D&R done, I'll update the articles with the new FP. I have dropped a message on the original nominator, but they aren't active in three years.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace. Source is the gallery hosting the painting itself. Colours are probably better although I'm not sure what happened in the top left corner. MER-C18:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, paintings are usually considered off-limits, even when the lighting is going to emphasise or de-emphasize the cracks and dust. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs.12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roundhay Garden Scene is often known as the oldest surviving film. The currently featured version is very low resolution and has compression artifacts so prominent that the people's features get distorted. It's been superseded by an HD version from a documentary about the creator. The new version is losslessly encoded to preserve as much detail as possible in each of the 20 images.
Keep Unfortunately, the replacement suffers from excessive contrast, highlights all blown out (e.g. man's face lost details). A better replacement should be found. --Janke | Talk06:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Details from the man's face in the original (top) versus the proposed replacement (bottom)
Strongly disagree that there are details in the original lost in the replacement (see comparison). The features are far more legible and you can see two separate eyes instead of a horizontal bar.
The top and bottom rows here are actually offset from each other by 2. It turns out the original is missing 2 of the 20 images from Roundhay Garden Scene, which is a huge problem for its EV. hinnk (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist & Replace – because it is a step in the right direction. The existing FP has pixelization (which shows as fake details). When a better copy becomes available, we can do another D&R. Bammesk (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, struck my keep. I don't like the contrast, though, the door also has totally blown highlights. --Janke | Talk12:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2024 at 07:42:39 (UTC)
The Bank is a 1915 American comedy film, written and directed by Charlie Chaplin.Proposed replacement
Reason
This file got removed from The Bank (1915 film) when I was uploading improved versions of Chaplin's short films. The newer copy has a higher resolution and shows more detail (try focusing in on the props or set design and you'll see a lot more of the texture, especially at source quality).
Opening this based on the discussion in the previous nomination. The currently listed file is impacted by phab:T362831, which produces an improperly converted video (note the limited contrast, with light sources showing up as grey instead of nearly white) unless readers know about the issue and select "Source" playback. The replacement version has been tonemapped so it more closely resembles the original.
D&R; Considering the date (1863), the quality and transparency of the retouched picture is acceptable and rather fine. Thanks for retouching and replacement. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2024 at 11:18:00 (UTC)
London King's Cross railway station's departures concourse, taken from the walkway between the mezzanine floor and the main station building during the evening rush hour.
Reason
Not used in any articles. Has been out of both articles it was used in for years.
Oppose — There isn't anything wrong with this picture. It's also not merely a lower-resolution copy of a file we now have a better copy of. While it's pretty much the same shot as the other, the conditions are different enough that the two pictures tell different stories. (They were also taken seven years apart.) They've both passed muster here and I think it's a false choice to have to pick one as being more legitimate than the other. Moonreach (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's not in use on the English Wikipedia; if it's still not in use at the end of the discussion period, this must surely default to a delist. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – For some reason, the other female Turdus merula mauritanicus file wasn't tagged as a FP on its local page, so I did it myself. ZZZ'S15:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a composite image, one photo cut and pasted in front of another photo. See the background photo Here. Clearly the church and mountain was shot separately and added to the aurora photo. It fails FP criterion #8, excessive manipulation. A delist nomination is ongoing at Commons too.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2024 at 14:34:15 (UTC)
A man in a blue coat.
Reason
Not used in any articles, probably would fail today's standards as a FP anyways. Article on subject was deleted via an AfD about a month ago for not meeting WP:BIO.
Already fails multiple featured picture criteria (specifically the first three). In fact, it was already delisted on Commons about 11 months ago. Do I really need to say the rest?
.jpg)
Done. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
_comparison.png)
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=829824660){kind=link}
_-_Gothenburg_Museum_of_Art_-_F_62.jpg)
_Demisted_with_DXO_PhotoLab_Clearview;_cropped_away_black_border_edge.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
![[6]](https://images4-cdn.auctionmobility.com/is3/auctionmobility-static4/T8s5-4-P/4-94O5R4/4_1.JPG){kind=link}
_female.jpg){kind=link}
