Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lake Fryxell delist

Lake Fryxell

This isn't exaclty a delisting. I am trying to get the current Featured Picture replaced by the better Commons Featured Picture version of it. The Wikipedia version has already been tagged as superseded and most instances of the image have been moved to the other version, except Lake Fryxell. This is a vote whether to delist the current one and replace it withe the better (in my opinion) one. Okay, I'm now trying to get the Wikipeida replaced with the original un-retouched version. If the vote doesn't pass, I'll replace all Commons instances of the picture (in articles) with the Wikipedia one.

Replace. - NauticaShades^(talk) 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose replacement of an image with an inferior version. The current featured image is higher resolution and has a more natural color balance. The commons version has an unnatural color balance that shows as a purple tint in the shadows of the mountain. Contrast and sharpness of the original could be adjusted without resorting to the overprocessed version nominated here. -- Moondigger 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist original and oppose promotion of alternate version. After reading the image page I'm now opposed to all versions of this image for featured status. The author explicitly states that the entire sky is artificial, created with the color gradient tool in photoshop. That doesn't represent reality, and shouldn't be featured at all. -- Moondigger 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that other retouched pictures are Featured Pictures, though. NauticaShades^(talk) 06:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats possibly true, but there is a significant portion voters here who would and do oppose images that have been retouched in that way. Just because images have been promoted in the past, doesn't make the voting against a re-touched image invalid now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's a difference between touching up the brightness or removing noise, both of which are acceptable, and digitally replacing the entire sky. Adding or removing elements in this way has always been frowned upon. Raven4x4x 02:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist both. As per moondigger's comments, it has been significantly re-touched. The original image was overly cropped at the horizon and an editor has artificially placed a gradient sky above the edge of the frame to improve the composition. (which it has, but it is no longer reliably encylopaedic and I don't think we should be setting that sort of precedent (if it is not already too late!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't really responsible for delisting the Commons Picture, however. NauticaShades^(talk) 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was lost in my own megalomania for a while there. ;) I'll settle for delisting the original then. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing it with this? Note: I've now uploaded and added it. NauticaShades^(talk) 07:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and oppose replacement. NauticaShades' ~~version~~ replacement candidate is too tightly cropped. howch e ng {chat} 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "my version", it's the original. The others aren't actually less cropped, someone just added an artifical gradient. NauticaShades^(talk) 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and oppose replacement. Wholeheartedly agree with Diliff (except the megalomania part ;-) ). --Dschwen 11:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the original? NauticaShades^(talk) 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm, it is an interesting place, but the icesheet lacks scale and the hills are shadowy. I guess I'd weak support it. --Dschwen 07:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]