Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg

Delist and Replace: "Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" with "Panini, Modern Rome.jpg"

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 May 2015 at 11:36:21 (UTC)

"Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" - Colors are washed out and the file is of lower resolution (2,916 × 2,259 px).

"Panini, Modern Rome.jpg" - Colors are correct and the file is of significantly higher resolution (3,701 × 2,868 px).

Reason: Inferior to File:Panini, Modern Rome.jpg.
Articles this image appears in: Arts in Rome, Giovanni Paolo Panini, Modern Rome, Pendant painting
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Two picture galleries with views of Rome
Nominator: Craigboy (talk)

Delist — Craigboy (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Digital manipulation of paintings scanned by museums is irresponsible and should not be promoted. Considering you've already nominated both images for deletion on commons, I'm having trouble AGF-ing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it is obvious that the original scan did not capture the painting's true colors, this is very common with scanners. Compare it with the vibrant colors seen in this photograph. "Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg" was nominated for deletion because it is essentially a lower resolution duplicate on an image that was already on wikicommons. Even if you were to pretend its not a duplicate then this image is still obviously inferior (lower resolution, inaccurate colors) and does not deserve to be featured. Also WP:AOBF.--Craigboy (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not an exact duplicate; you need to check your understanding of Commons policy. The mere fact that you are nominating this image for delisting means that it and the other image you are nominating are different. And what reference do you have that the colors are inaccurate? Paintings fade after 250 years. They get dirty. When it comes to accuracy, I trust people with immediate access to the painting over armchair experts with photo editing software. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crisco, please do not violate the WP:NPA policy. Panini isn't known for using muted colors and various pictures of the painting show it looking much more vibrant than the current featured image. You're also making the assumption that once scanned the picture was adjusted to insure it was representative of the colors. Here is another picture of the painting.--Craigboy (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you think that "armchair experts" is a personal attack and directed at you, feel free to bring me to WP:ANI. Again, you have yet to provide any references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You have been provided with three.--Craigboy (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Alternative photographs are not reliable sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Please point me to the section where it says alternative photographs are not reliable sources because I am currently under the belief that is a non-existent rule. What kind of evidence do you even want? I could even go the Met if had to, I visit New York city occasionally.--Craigboy (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given recent edits today, I'm also struggling to AGF on this too, – SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond WP:AOBF do you have any justification for keeping a lower resolution image with inaccurate colors featured?--Craigboy (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panini isn't known for using muted colors. Almost all pictures taken of the painting show much more vibrant colors than what is shown in the currently featured image. It is reasonable to assume the colors are not accurate.--Craigboy (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings fade, and too many people - yourself included, it appears - are not averse to editing proper scans to provide what they think the painting should look like. Also, don't forget that a lot of digital cameras automatically adjust colors when photographs are taken; that also affects how an image is rendered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art website shows an image of the painting with much higher contrast than the image currently featured.--Craigboy (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as above, museum scans should not be digitally manipulated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the attempted deletion of this file on Commons was speedily closed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of course it has. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco, please see WP:CIV.--Craigboy (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is uncivil about saying a deletion request has been properly closed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of course it has." I'm not going to argue with you about how you're conducting yourself.--Craigboy (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - Very little chance of this closing as D&R. No need to prolong the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your repeated violations of wikipedia's code of conduct, you're probably not the best person to make that decision.--Craigboy (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craigboy, Crisco's conduct in this discussion has been perfectly reasonable. Let it drop. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I'm not going to engage in a debate regarding Crisco's conduct.--Craigboy (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... I disagree Josh Milburn. I appreciate all that Crisco contributes to FP, but this is some embarrassing conduct to come from an admin. Although I side with keeping the original photo based on the museum scan rule, there are several snide remarks made throughout this topic. Case in point:
*Oh, you mean one with more definitive sourcing and more accurate colours? Say, what makes someone with a long-term focus on the docking of spacecraft begin to exhibit an interest in 18th-century art? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)"
How encouraging is it to hear something like that when you're trying to contribute? chsh (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chsh, I doubt that you are aware of the background behind that question. I'd recommend having a look at FPC-related discussions from around September and October of last year. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig, if I was closing this, I wouldn't be !voting "speedy close". I'd have closed this. The "Speedy Close" is a recommendation to other editors, which may be heeded, or may be ignored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please properly indent, talk pages become hard to follow if users do not. I've corrected the indentation to maintain readability.--Craigboy (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like turtles Tokugawapants (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always been partial to tortoises myself. But turtles are awesome. :) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept ---The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as well as there is a clear cut consensus to do so before this gets into a name calling fest.---The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]