Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Chicago skyline image replacement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chicago skyline taken from Adler Planetarium
Current replacement nominee (2008-08-16)
Current WP:FP nominated for delisting (2006-10-09)
Other versions, provided for comparison
Former FP (2005-03-02 sunset)
Current WP:FP (2009-04-18 at sunrise)
Reason
The Chicago Skyline is continuously evolving. Perusal at List of tallest buildings in Chicago shows a lot was underway in 2008 that was not in the 2006 image. Now much of it is complete and optimally we would have a 2010 image to replace this with, but currently the best standard lighting replacement is 2008.

For specific examples the city evolution not characterized in the 2006 image consider 340 on the Park, which was still under construction in 2006, Blackstone Hotel, which was still under renovation in 2006, Blue Cross Blue Shield Tower and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) , which were under construction in 2008. Many examples exist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in
Geography of Chicago
List of tallest buildings in Chicago
Historic Michigan Boulevard District
Previous nomination/s
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg see also discussions regarding newer skyline FPs at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline at sunrise
Nominator
TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
  • Delist and replaceTonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is nothing wrong with having more than one FP of the same thing. Besides, your replacement, even though a higher resolution, does not include the left of the panorama. NauticaShades 10:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace. It seems to be common now to have two flagship panoramas for each city, one aesthetic and the other high-detail. Twice the resolution is a huge improvement for the high-detail version that we're debating now. -- King of 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose D & R First because it is unwarranted as the first image still meets all the criteria to be a featured picture, secondly because it sets an extraordinarily bad precedent to replace not only an image (although that's more of an article level issue) but an FP as well every year just because the subject has changed, by that logic we should reshoot and delist and replace every photograph of a person or people because they have grown older, any natural formations that may have changed,..., the list is endless to the point of being ridiculous. Cat-five - talk 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an addendum, I believe the proper way to deal with issues like this is to go article by article and see if there is a consensus to replace the current image with the newer one then of course if the older image is not used in any articles then I would not be opposed to delisting it. All that could be done after the new image got it's own seperate FP status. Cat-five - talk 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new one has advantages, but the 2006 one isn't cut off at the left and has better (less dull) lighting. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above-- mcshadypl TC 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Jujutacular T · C 13:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]