Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Junonia villida.jpg
- Reason
- Replacement is better (Undamaged is an advantage, so is the better lighting).
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Junonia villida tas.jpg
- Nominator
- Noodle snacks (talk)
- Delist and Replace — Noodle snacks (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Massive color difference between the two moths. Which is correct? Nezzadar [SPEAK] 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Both - turns out a lot of hair was missing from the older one. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the old picture shows a bit of the inside of the moth.. the colour is different because of the angle of the light.. I hate the delist process.. it is a travesty. GerardM (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- What is it a travesty of? Surely improvements are a good thing? Also, it is a butterfly, and not quite as far as colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Replacement. In several aspects not better: flowers more distracting,
closed eye,flat (less feet and antennae visible). Elekhh (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC); eye details. Elekhh (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)- Um, I don't think butterflies are physically capable of closing their eyes... Noodle snacks (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for now I like the lighting and composition of the current FP. --Muhammad(talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose replacing' The lighting on the proposed replacement makes the colors look blown out and the flower is distracting, the original seems to be the better shot. Cat-five - talk 06:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The lighter colour of the alt is because the hairs aren't missing. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delist, replace: I prefer the composition of the alternative, and specimen seems much healthier. As well as the damaged wing, the original little fellow is missing quite a lot of hair. Maedin\talk 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Rather cut and dry, this one is. Still, I yet again would like to mention that the regular closers seem to have simultaneously disappeared.
