Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Bison Skull Pile

Bison Skull Pile

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 22:20:53 (UTC)

Photograph from the mid-1870s of a pile of American Bison skulls waiting to be ground for fertilizer. Courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library.

Reason: As many regulars here will undoubtedly know, this image has been controversial in the past. Allow me to give a brief history. It was passed with overwhelming support in 2005, the 2007 delist nomination garnered a decent amount of attention, mostly on the side of keeping the image. The 2009 delist gathered huge attention and further momentum to delist.

The arguments that have kept this image featured in the past were the following:

Irreplaceable historic value, which overrides quality concerns (sometimes called the "WOW Factor")
Acceptable quality given the time (1870s)
Huge, massive, unbelievable EV. Bigger than the pile of the skulls!

All three claims are false.

On the first count, there are larger versions out there. This is a poor reproduction of the original. Take for example this uncropped scan File:Buffalo_skulls.jpg, which shows that there is considerably more detail in the original. This source also has a larger image available for a fee. Traditionally, and logically, an image is not featured because it is "the best available". If the best available doesn't clear the bar, then that image simply isn't featured.

The quality is also not acceptable given the time. Taken from the previous nomination, all of these images are from the same time period and have much higher quality.File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, File:Atlanta roundhouse ruin3.jpg, File:George Atzerodt2.jpg, File:Train station with train and coal depot by Gustave Le Gray2.jpg, File:DutchGapb.jpg. Given these alternatives, this version is pitiful.

As for the argument of great EV, its usage in all of its articles does not reflect this. It is generally just thrown into articles where it is a) not discussed b) often lost in an over-illustrated mess c) stands out in an article where it is barely relevant. It is ironic that its own EV as a massive pile of skulls is greatly diminished by its small size. It would be much more impactful if more, nay, any detail was visible.

Full disclosure, I voted to keep last time around. My views have changed. I doubt this would pass today.

Articles this image appears in: American Bison, Bison hunting, American Old West, Environmental racism, Plains Indians, Frontier Strip, Endangered Species, Conservation in the United States, Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant
Previous nomination/s: 2005 Nomination, Failed 2007 Delist, Failed 2009 Delist
Nominator: Cowtowner (talk)

Delist — Cowtowner (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I think this is actually simpler than Cowtowner's admirably exhaustive account suggests. The print he links to is of good enough quality to get a much better scan from it than this one. So--anyone willing to pay the DPL 50 bucks for a pro-quality scan? Chick Bowen 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- $15, no need to pay them commercial use tax for a public domain image. — raeky t 14:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though, if you pay the $15, then upload it as PD, they might be more wary of any other images we might like scanned in the future. I'd throw in $5, but won't have the chance to fix my paypal for the better part of a month. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked into acquiring the image and they make you sign this form before you get the image, would signing that form put you at legal risk for a public domain image? — raeky t 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think anyone would be willing to answer that! Let's put it this way- from my limited knowledge of US law, no, surely not, but I certainly wouldn't want to try it. I'd say contact the legal counsel, but I'm not even sure if we have one at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, resolution far too low. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, as in 2009. --Elekhh (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, too small even for a historical image. --Avenue (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It's time for this to go. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep / Delist and replace If there's a better version that we could be using then than have this be a delist and replace nomination but it doesn't make sense to say that there is a better version without offering to do a delist and replace. If someone is willing to do that then this is a delist and replace opinion. If there's an issue of licensing on the other hand then give that as the reason and have that be the reason to delist. The reasoning for delisting should be clear, to the point, and stand up to scrutiny which this seems to fail on all counts. Cat-five - talk 10:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's true. The reason to delist is that it's too small and there is good reason to believe this scan is not as sharp as the original image. Those are very valid reasons. We are speculating about whether it is possible, for a fee or with some trouble, to get a better one, but to me, that possibility of a better image seems separate from the question of whether this particular image should be listed. Chick Bowen 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the issue of whether a replacement can be found should be resolved before this delist nomination is closed. We'd do the same if this was a nomination instead of a delist nomination no matter what the reasoning even if that meant holding it for awhile after the voting window. That's not to say that we need to treat list and delist nominations exactly the same but as I've said in the past there seems to be an undue urgency by a lot of people on FPC to delist images. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]