Comment The original nomination is, in fact, listed, and the subsequent attempts to delist this image are not required on this removal page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid request This new file is not the same and was never given a FP stamp so cannot be a replacement of an established FP. Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace. Let's not create bureaucracy where it's not needed. This process is ample for the replacement of a lower-resolution photo with a higher-resolution one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Lycaon, but disagreeing with you is not POV-pushing, particularly when four other people have voted that way. Please stop the random accusations of bad faith. Note that this alsio isn't the first time: You actively disenfranchised me in the past, in order to make a FPX go through, saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote in support because I had previously stated that I liked the image. Now, it seems, you want to disenfranchise not just me, but four other people as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a random accusation Adam. It is something I noticed. And My statement was valid, Durova's delisting attempt not. Just facts. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed that I supported things I have said I like? Quel horreur! That does not justify any of your actions, in either case. You shut down a legitimate challenge to an FPX, as per the instructions written on the FPX template, causing it to be closed, and now you want to shut down a vote simply because you don't like it, and want more bureaucracy instead. And both times, your attempts to force first one vote, to prematurely shut down a discussion; and now a whole group of votes to shut down a decision to be declared invalid - clear POV-pushing on your part - were justified by hypocritically accusing others of POV-pushing. Extremely bad form, sir! Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Before this descends into the commons equivalent of nuclear warfare, can I ask a few questions?
A) Precisely what is the problem with replacing the image? They look to be the same picture.
B) Will there be a catastrophic disaster on Commons if the image is/isn't changed?
C) How is wanting to replace a Featured Image with a better quality version displaying/pushing POV? (With all the negative conotations that word implys)
D) Why so much tension and drama over such a simple thing?
original unrestored image (lower resolution than the source for the new restoration)
detail from older restoration
detail from older restoration, with uncorrected damage circled
The older restoration is slightly under 1MB in size; the newer restoration is much higher resolution at over 27MB. The older version has a number of problems, the most noticeable of which is the unnatural and distracting sky. It could be a case study in why reliance on auto levels is not necessarily a good idea. Also at full resolution it has a large number of uncorrected artifacts of aging. Above is a detail showing several of them. The new restoration worked from the highest resolution scan--232MB--which probably wasn't available four years ago when the earlier restoration was attempted. This image is used in several dozen languages and receives 300,000-400,000 views per month. It was possible to do better than the older version, and we ought to put our best foot forward with historic images as important as the Wright brothers' first flight. Durova (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section is for discussing delistings only. If you want to promote an alternative version based on different base material nominate that as an FPC as any other FPC. That ought to be a walk in the park, by the way. The reason for being a little stringent on that is that the FPC section has more reviewers and it is only fair that the newly restored version is subjected to the same amount of scrutiny as any other FPC. Although I would be surprised if there were serious issues which could be improved given the normal high quality of the resorer, different contributors should not have special treatment. If some users think this is too tedious and bureuacratic a process and not needed I propose that these users intiate a discussion about opening up for delist and replace on the FPC talk page and seek for consensus for that possibility. --Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amending the nomination per suggestions. To the closer: please evaluate all delist and replace votes as delist only. Durova (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info - There is no delist and replace procedure in Commons. The delisting of the first picture will not automatically cause the promotion of the second. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which is exactly what Durova is confirming and accepting in the line above . It is now, a pure delist request after clearing out the intitial misunderstanding, as it should be... --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it too, Kim :). This was just to make clear to the closer that it is not a choice of the nominator but a question of procedure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Proposed delist/replace with new restoration at higher resolution. (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wrightflyer.jpg).
Delist 
Comment Please show original vote and subsequent delisting attempt. -- carol (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
original unrestored image (lower resolution than the source for the new restoration)
detail from older restoration
detail from older restoration, with uncorrected damage circled
. It is now, a pure delist request after clearing out the intitial misunderstanding, as it should be... --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
