Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Bison skull pile

Bison skull pile

Reason: 576 × 461 pixels, file size: 175 KB. Encyclopedic, but not even close to minimum on the technical side. A 2005 nomination that may have been the site's best back then, but just isn't up to par anymore.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bison skull pile-restored.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Bison skull pile-restored.jpg
Nominator: Durova³⁵¹

Delist — Durova³⁵¹ 05:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Fails current criteria, by a long shot. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 07:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I remember this being used recently as an example of where historical value trumps dimensions. That's a bad lesson to be teaching people, interesting image but way below standards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep I tend to agree with the arguments put forth in the previous delist attempt--historical value trumps the size in this case. The information is conveyed acceptably. Cowtowner 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- The previous delist attempt was two and a half years ago. It's been a very long time since editors have promoted a nomination with technical shortcomings as severe as this (been a regular since late 2007 and can't recall it once). No one is suggesting deleting the image from the project, but if this were a new FPC nomination it would probably be speedily closed. This simply isn't Wikipedia's best content. Not by a longshot. Durova³⁵² 15:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely and utterly agree with this sentiment. This is just too awful to be a FP, despite its EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if someone ever finds an image to better represent such an important period in the history of the American bison, or human factors causing endangered species then I will vote to replace this image with that. As of now this is what we have and historical value does trump dimensions. If it didn't then we would have no old photos because their dimensions are usually resultant from scan quality and not the original image. This image is incredibly striking and is one of the few images of this size that deserve to be featured. An image like this is better quality but just doesn't have the same effect of scale. gren グレン 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To a degree you are correct, but I thought it was a pile or rocks before reading the caption, it's that bad. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate the sentiment, the caption is there for that reason; the same could likely be said about a number of other FPs. I've also changed my earlier vote to a weak support. Cowtowner (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It's not the size, it's the detail. I certainly can't tell that those are bison skulls. We can make exceptions for historic images, but this is too far below the standards for an exception. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am against delisting in the first place .,, it is like rerwriting history. GerardM (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should abstain, as your voting skews the process. I don't think "I don't like the process" holds up that well anyways. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I really don't see why everyone is so mad about this picture. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The poor quality image is unrecognizable without the caption. Featured pictures means worthy pictures themselves, not have to resort to the one line of "caption", but the picture is far away from that standard. --21:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit history says this ^ ^ ^ was Caspian blue voting.

Delist for poor image quality. However I would consider it for a Valued Picture nomination. Is there a straightforeward process of transfer from WP:FP to WP:VPICS? Elekhh (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Touchy subject. upstate NYer 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you can't retake this and there were no "megapixels" in 1870s for anyone to complain about them.--Avala (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The wow factor has me, but not fully. upstate NYer 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gren. A rare monument to such an abject human folly, it blows me away every time I see it. Would a bigger version have any more impact? No. Unique, striking, poignant, encyclopedic and irreplaceable. Keep. mikaul^talk 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think is reasonable to assume that a better version would have more impact. One has to admit that at 250px as it appears in the articles is not recognisable that those are skulls. And even a zoom to max size is very unclear. Certainly is a great image, but its visual quality is very low. Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated." Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original uploader has not edited since 2005.[1] The original nominator has made fewer than 100 edits in 2009, most of which were in January.[2] Will notify the latter. Durova³⁵⁷ 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. It's more procedural than anything. With a close nom like this, I prefer to see everything go by the book. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're absolutely right. Should've thought of that myself. Thanks for the catch. :) Durova³⁵⁷ 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikaul, et al. If there's a comparable higher quality version I would be happy to support a replace, but until then this looks irreplaceable, and huge EV. There seems little reason to shuffle this sort of stuff out of FP, when things with a fraction of the EV are still going in just because they're big. --jjron (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Muhammad(talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I am going to make the assumption that this photograph is essentially irreplaceable for what it represents - photography in the field was still rare in the 1860s and 1870s, and in frontier country even more so. There are not likely to be very many any photographs that illustrate large piles of dead buffalo in this way, at least not that have survived and are accessible publicly. I also assert that this has very high EV in the sections of the articles it illustrates - it shows the deliberate extermination of a species in a very clear and visible way. It also is a powerful image that has an effect on many viewers. Despite this, it should be delisted. Some things that are amazing just simply can't be featured pictures, and this is one of them. It is a particularly bad photograph in almost every respect except for its notable subject, even for a photo taken in the early 1870s - it is not due to technical limitations of photography at the time that this is bad. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep On one hand this is an immensely irreplaceable image and overwhelming EV, on the other it's a horrible resolution. Presumably the original for this scan still exists, if only it could be tracked down and digitized by today's standards. I'm still in favor of keeping these historic images around, do we even remotely have anything better to illustrate the bison slaughter during this time? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Screw the idiotic size guidelines, if a picture has high EV and is irreplaceable which this is then there is no good reason to delist it and those who want to delist this should really go through the archives and see the spirit of the older days of FPC and if they can't then in my opinion they should stop coming to this page. Cat-five - talk 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons given. I also like that it's inspiring. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's blatant OR to connect the two images. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It's not my opinion that the artwork I linked to was inspired by the bison skull photo, it says so under the picture. To quote: "This piece is inspired by the famous photograph from the 1870's of the great American bison slaughter." Anyway, I would have voted keep having never see the artwork. --Silversmith Hewwo 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The outcome of this discussion will have consequences for future featured pictures. Do those in support think that we should abolish all size and quality requirements for FPC, for images we don't think we can find another example of? Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that how it already is? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only for images that are already featured. Durova³⁶⁴ 01:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Compare this alleged Featured Picture above with these images, all from 1860-1870; 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 (most likely 1850s and represents the artistic intent of the creator), File:DutchGapb.jpg, and for reference what was possible in 1838 at the birth of photography: File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg.
    - We have some reasonably bad quality images File:Buffalo soldiers1.jpg, File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg, File:GoldenSpikev3.jpg, File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg The first I would nominate for delisting, the second has been nominated and encountered the same arguments as are presented here (despite the fact that it is an poor piece of Civil War era photography, the third is of questionable FP status and should be delisted, and the last we give up quality requirements because its value is in representing what a first photograph is, not in its pictorial representation of the buildings. This image File:Cicatrices de flagellation sur un esclave.jpg is perhaps the closest to the one in question here - low image quality, but essentially irreplaceable and of high value for a number of reasons. I might be a hypocrite, but I think that one should be kept, and Buffalo Pile delisted.
    - And just this week I nominated File:Pale Blue Dot.png, which is of low quality, but is both at the limit of technology available (no better image will be able to be produced of the Earth as seen from outside the Solar System for at least two decades) and represents its subject in an important way because of its low quality, not in spite of it. Low quality does nothing to improve our understanding of dead buffalo. I would also gladly support this if a suitably licensed version became available, because it represents the best available for the time. (I might just email them and ask them to license it under GFDL or CC). Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also I would like to thank Durova. Looking through our historic images it becomes obvious just how many have been restored and nominated by her, and how she has improved Wikipedia and established what should be a historic featured picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's great that libraries are digitizing their old works, but some things just either are not digitized yet, may never be, or lost, or not publicly available anymore. There has to be exceptions for historically unique and irreplaceable images that just ooze EV to be nominated. The example recently is pictures of the Kaaba, and for that matter any good image inside a Islamic mosque. Due to their religion banning cameras/photos anything of good quality would be near impossible for some of these holy sites. Why should they be excluded from FP status? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Many thanks to Mostlyharmless for the kind words. Since doing the buffalo soldiers restoration my skills have improved a bit and it might be possible to get a better edit out of that material, if it were up for delisting (have a very full plate with new work so haven't tried). Raeky, one of the main reasons I try to delist images such as this one is because we've got free culture volunteers talking to the great libraries. This is one of the images that stands in the way of our credibility as a project. It's cheaper and easier for institutions to rush off a mediocre job like this than to emulate the really high quality work the Library of Congress is doing. Access to historic media isn't a passive matter; increasingly we have to talk to institutions and do outreach and persuade them to digitize at a high standard. Do you want this image to convey "good enough"? Because we have to either direct away from the galleries where this sort of image appears, or else run the risk that this is as high as they aim. Durova³⁶⁴ 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You do have a point, but I doubt this one image will convince a library to JUST provide just small resolution images. I'd really like to replace this image with ANYTHING better that portrays the slaughter of the bison like this. I'm _sure_ the LOC has an image somewhere, probably not digitized yet. But anything that can show the tens of thousands of bison that was killed during this time would replace this. Sadly I think this is all we got that conveys the numbers. Thats why I don't fully support delisting it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There may not be anything, ever. This may be all we ever get. For many things there is precious little that can be found to illustrate them, and many articles will never get illustrations. Others will have very poor quality illustrations, because no high quality illustration was ever made. That is the way things are, unfortunately, but simply being the only illustration of something is not a free pass, otherwise we would have thousands of poor quality "featured pictures" representing "Wikipedia's best work" It has been my understanding (and I have assumed of others), that lower quality can be accepted where there are very strong reasons for it, and that lower image quality can be accepted for particularly historic images (although here we can expect that drawing, painting and other forms of illustration are given precedence as the high quality standards of their time), but that image quality is always taken into consideration. In the case of this delist, it seems to have been ignored entirely, and that arguments for keeping consist of asking users to ignore it. In practice it is expected of newly nominated historic images, but there is an inconsistency with older images such as this and the delist mentioned above, something I would suggest can be explained as loss aversion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say that new images of lower quality can't be nominated if there is nothing better to be found. Both rule #1 and #2 have those exceptions. So where do you get that only "already featured" part? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this only me thinking that how come several editors who are not WP:FPC regulars found the delist request and visit the page to support to keep the image?--Caspian blue 06:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cowtowner, Grenavitar, GerardM, Avala, UpstateNYer, Mikaul, jjron, Muhammed, Raeky, Silversmith have all voted on this page to keep. I respect the right of every one of those participants to do so, and consider their opinions on this image sincere (even if I hope to change their minds). I don't think that is a fair statement - they all participate regularly at various times and should not have their participation questioned. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I know that most of them you're referring to are regulars, but I did talk about non-regulars. I said it because I felt odd for people who just came to oppose the delisting. Your comment is rather harsh.--Caspian blue 06:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I knew I should have checked - I missed Cat Five. Cat Five has just the same right to an opinion as any other. I thought your vague assertion of bad-faith voting (I'm not sure how else you'd like us to read your comment) was quite uncalled for. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not name names unlike you just to disagree with me. Moreover, don't you think that your comment is "bad-faithing" on my question? --Caspian blue 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure there's quite a few lurkers that don't have occasion to voice an opinion on nominations or delists, except when they feel strongly about something. If your suggesting someone is trolling to get votes here maliciously, I highly doubt that. As for this image, I'm only weekly supporting keep, but I'd be more inclined to delist this and have it voted as a VP. The quality is awful no doubt. But this particular subject enlists deep feelings in me, such a massive amount of these animals was killed in a very short period of time. This image speaks volumes to the damage man can do to an ecosystem or organism. I just wish we had a better version of it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm..I did not insinuate that somebody is trolling here, so no thanks for the hyperbole and accusation. I just find the image very lower in quality than other images that meet the FP criteria. That can give false impressions that any historical image can be FP regardless of the quality and size. However, I see now that why people want to keep the image, "ecosystem" although I'm not persuaded by the rationales because the white objects are not recognizable without the caption.--Caspian blue 07:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if the picture was clear as day you would still need a caption to know what the skulls were since the average person can't easily distinguish one animal skull from another. Also, it is amazing to discover what looks like a pile of rocks is actually skulls IMO. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Durova. Yes, the picture is valuable, but the quality of _this particular reproduction_ is bad. The remedy is to find a better-quality copy of the photo and do a competent scan of it. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if that can't be done? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we accept that we have no featured picture for that subject. It's what we normally do. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the actual image, they will scan it for you for a fee... if someone wants to pay them to get a high res version of this picture. lol. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, I live nearby that museum (relatively). I doubt I could negotiate a free scan though =(. Cowtowner (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have written the library that has the original print and requested a better version. They replied that the request is being forwarded to another person's attention and should receive a decision next week. Durova³⁶⁹ 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be amazing if we could get a higher quality version of this photograph. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 09:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could equally be terrible - if we simply get a larger copy of what is still a poor quality image from the time, and everyone simply votes "keep cause it's larger". I hope that doesn't happen. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better scan? I found a better scan (but not higher resolution) Buffalo_skulls.jpg. Hartmanga (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending results of Durova's request to library. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Received a reply a few days ago. They seemed willing to donate a higher resolution image. Replied promptly, but no followup yet. Delays might be due to the holidays (not sure). Durova³⁸³ 05:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any news? --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]