Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Sept 2010 at 09:36:53 (UTC)

Crepuscular rays at sunset from Telstra Tower

Reason: It's very pretty and everything, but we don't need two featured pictures of crepuscular rays- neither is really showing anything the other isn't. Though neither is blowing me away, the the other image has pride of place in the article, and, though lower resolution, has more of a focus on the rays themselves- this one is very landscape-based. It's not really adding anything to the other article in which it is used other than window dressing. (We also have a third FP of the rays.)
Articles this image appears in: Crepuscular rays, Black Mountain Tower
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg
Nominator: J Milburn (talk)

Delist — J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First question: Has the creator been contacted? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fir0002 is no longer active on Wikipedia, so no. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should still leave a note on his talk page. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, note left. J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Just subpar by today's standards. Cowtowner (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: ~~Agree. Maedin\^talk 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)~~ To clarify, delist based solely on the image's technical and resolution shortcomings, without regard to other possible FPs of the subject, which may or may not also be suitable for delisting. Maedin\^talk 11:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why delist this one? If we want to delist one, we really need to look at all three. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're able to- I linked them in the opening statement, and also explained why I nominated this one. This one has the smallest focus on the rays- the rays are only a small part of the picture; this one is more of a landscape. Additionally, this one is not given pride of place in the article, the other is- seems those who have edited the article agree that this is not the strongest illustration for the subject. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I've looked at all three, and I think this is the best one to delist. This one is of similar quality, but shows the rays from underneath, which the other two do not, and IMO the remaining one is better than the one nominated for delisting. --Avenue (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adam. I don't think you can single any one of them out as being any worse than the others. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And you feel all of them have strong EV? Three pictures, all showing basically the same thing in the same article can't all have FP-level value. J Milburn (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's not what I said. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it isn't, and so I'm asking you to shed some light on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other image has rays going up; these are going down. And it is a beautiful image; it was when it was taken, it was when it was first voted upon, and it is still a beautiful and tranquil image. I think it should appear on the Main Page a second time myself. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This featured image shows the rays going down. We simply don't need three featured pictures of the same subject. In any case, your vote was added after this should have been closed, but PLW (with whom I have no interest in edit warring further) has literally decided to enforce his own made up rules. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per technical shortcomings. Jujutacular ^talk 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6-3 typically defaults to keep, but in this case, the stronger arguments in favor of delisting push the consensus that way. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]