Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Red Panda.JPG

Red Panda

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2010 at 15:37:36 (UTC)

Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)

Reason: No longer used in Red Panda (a good article), it is only used a gallery; the value of this picture is currently very low. It only just meets our resolution requirements.
Articles this image appears in: Wildlife of India
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Panda
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Delist — J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you notify the creator? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified the nominator (who has not edited in years). From what I can see, the creator was never active on the English Wikipedia. There's an account on Commons that has not edited in nearly four years. Feel free to notify if you feel the need, though I note that our specific instructions do not require it, so certainly don't feel free to take "remedial action". J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the idea is to give them reasonable notice, not slip it past them by whatever doesn't quite violate the rules. Honest courtesy is not a flaw, Milburn, nor is putting in a genuine effort. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't talk to me about "courtesy". You've shown you'll do everything in your power to wikilawyer your way into being a dick, so I'm just anticipating that. You could just, y'know, vote delist and move on. It wouldn't pass today, no matter what the usage, and everyone bloody knows it. Why are people so scared of delists? If the uploader cared even remotely about the English Wikipedia, I'm sure they'd have an account here. Would we be contacting military personnel if we were going to delist a US-Mil picture? No, of course not. There's also the slightly odd fact that people get so het-up about notifying creators when delisting, yet creators are frequently not notified when it's actually listed- it's entirely possible the first they hear about it is that it's getting delisted. In any case, this is off-topic. Can we try and get one freaking delist nomination with a satisfying consensus? J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've already buried the notion of getting a decent consensus, so I don't understand your new-found zeal for the idea. Try to be consistent for once. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am saying we need a decent consensus to stop ~~people~~ you moaning. I am an extremely consistent person, and I deeply resent your "misguided" bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Theres not a way to fit it into the Red Panada article? Its a really good picture Spongie555 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It was removed from the article by the editors of the article, and the article itself is currently of a high quality; it's not our place to start forcing it into articles. Further, unless it was the lead image, so far as I can see, it will always be redundant to the lead image, giving it rather questionable EV. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has a number of redundant images, all of them of lower image quality than the current FP. The only one that comes close in quality is , but it has a few blown highlights in unfortunate places. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There probably are redundant images, but they shouldn't be FPs either. J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure how your comment is relevant to the nomination. What I was saying is that there are many that would probably flop over in deference because they're mediochre in image quality, and don't add EV beyond what the lede image achieves, so I wouldn't anticipate great difficulty in finding the FP a place in the article. I think it's worth having one really decent image in the article, and this is the one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The point I'm making is that, even if we "flop over" one redundant image to add this redundant image, that doesn't suddenly mean that this image has EV. This one has been replaced by the editors of the article, and the article is currently of fairly good quality; we should be very careful about just trying to slip in pictures we like... J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the same goes for delisting images that we don't like ("we" in inverted commas, probably). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't follow? J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, really, this is just getting silly. Cowtowner (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone put it back in the Red Panda article. Spongie555 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what EV does it have there? It's just another picture of a Red Panda. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would seem to be the topic of the article, don't you think? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but that doesn't mean that any picture that happens to show a Red Panda has FP-level EV, does it? J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This image was unanimously supported by 19 editors for reasons including EV. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes... It may well have had EV then. Doesn't mean that it does now. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please explain. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Right now, it is, so far as I can see, just another picture of the subject, entirely redundant to the lead image. The article would not be severely lacking without it- it's offering little in terms of reader understanding. EV is not, and can not be, about the image independent of its usage. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Given how blurry the lead image is, it would easily be just as useful if downsampled twofold in each dimension. Furthermore, the white background removes any recognisable contour around the ears. The only reason to have any sympathy with the lede image is that the animal is munching bamboo - useful information, but that's where its qualities cease. I can't see the ear tufts, and I don't get the fine detail of the fur, which is hugely relevant to the topic because it's one of the main reasons they're vanishing - poaching for fur. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're not happy with the lead image, that's fair enough, but that doesn't suddenly mean this one has EV. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Read my previous comment. It addresses your question. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't ask a question. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Maedin\^talk 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]