Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/British Columbia Parliament Buildings

British Columbia Parliament Buildings[edit]

Reason: The banding in the sky is an obvious detraction from this photo. I feel like it really takes from the quality of the image. It was discussed during the initial nom and an edit was created that reduced the banding. I think by today's standards it may not have been accepted, so I propose it here for delisting on those grounds.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/British Columbia Parliament Buildings - Pano - HDR.jpg
Nominator: ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣}

Delist — ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Edit: Delist and Replace with edit Suggest replacing this image with the edited version that corrects the banding in the sky. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this is the same edit offered in the original nom? If so, it was noted that there were issues with the edit, to quote "...the current edit available has damage to the building as a result of the edit." I haven't compared them myself, but if this is correct, would you still support a 'replace'? And on another note, your signature takes up about 4 lines in the edit window - as impressive as I'm sure this is, is this really necessary? It makes it hard for other editors to follow things.--jjron (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally don't see any harm having been done to the sky in the edit, which is why I suggest a replace rather than just delist. I did note the talk about the sky in the original nom, but I'm not convinced. Either way, users here can vote just to delist and not replace. But the edited image is of high quality too (very detailed) and I think deserves the continued status. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you've misread my comment. The original nom talked about damage to the building in the edit, not the sky. Perhaps read through the original nom closely and see if you can see what they're talking about. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm no expert, but I didn't notice any glaring differences in the locations pointed out in the nom. Even so, the image is so detailed that you only would see these problems in full size, which is enormous. I think these would be minor issues that would be ignored due to the extensive detail already offered if it were up for nom now. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per Wadester. Durova^Charge! 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unable to inform nominator/author of delist nom due to protected talk page. Admin interested? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd poked around a bit more, you'd see he's got a different user name. MER-C 09:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's unreasonable when the user's page references leaving WP due to direct threats to his/her family and the user's talk page is filled with goodbyes from other users. It's fair to assume the user is gone for good. But I did leave a message on the user's new name. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep original Yes the sky is better, but look at the face on the gold statue(it is gone). Look at the edges of the dome(half gone). The two small domes beside the large one in the middle show posterization(one flat color where there should be texture). The edit to the sky damages the rest of the building. If someone can fix the sky without damaging the primary subject of the image I will support it. When I took this picture I accidentally used a polarized filter and shot from multiple angles, that is what lead to the band in the sky. I intend to eventually retake this picture. I support improving the sky but not at the cost to the building. While the existing image has flaws, it is also probably the most detailed picture of this building in the world. Chillum 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original - for now, until problems can be fixed without damaging original. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer While I can certainly accept my picture being delisted, I must strongly object to it being replaced with the alternative suggested. While people have voted for this replacement I don't think they were aware of the glaring faults with the repair of my image. Whole sections of building have been reduced to one or two flat colors, the edges of the building are half gone, and the golden statue has no face anymore. Please either close this as keep, or delist, but do not replace it with the inferior copy. Chillum 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Fletcher (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 03:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]