Chicago skyline image replacement - Wikipedia (original) (raw)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current replacement nominee (2008-08-16)

Current WP:FP nominated for delisting (2006-10-09)

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 replace — TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why list four images? Makes it horribly confusing. Suggest just showing the one you're nomming for delist and the proposed replacement and kill the others (give a text link maybe), unless you're putting up multiple noms for delist. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * There exist two FPs of the skyline and I am letting the voters know. Also at the recent FP of the most sunrise all 4 were shown without confusing the voters. Some voters at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago skyline at sunrise expressed an interest in seeing this actual replacement nomination. Also, since the point of FP is to select the best of images of a certain type, this presents a clear comparison that most voters would not be familiar with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 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. NauticaShad es 10:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have expanded the reason to show building progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * By all means nominate your replacement for promotion. I'll support. But that doesn't mean that the current FP should be delisted. Perhaps the two images could be used in conjunction with each other (say, in List of tallest buildings in Chicago) to demonstrate the rapid pace of construction in Chicago. NauticaShad es 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * It is not currently in any articles. Thus, I can not nominate it and in List of tallest buildings in XXXX articles they do not show rapid pace of construction by comparative skyline photos. Everything is inferred from date of completion of buildings and buildings under construction lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * Could you rephrase the second sentence? I'm not sure I'm understanding you. NauticaShad es 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * The proposed replacement is not in any articles right now. I could add it to a few. However your suggestion to use it in List of tallest buildings in Chicago) to demonstrate the rapid pace of construction in Chicago is not in keeping with conventional methods of showing change in construction. As noted above, tables containing date of completion of buildings and other tables showing buildings under construction relay this information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * Yes, but the juxtaposition of the two images could provide a useful auxiliary method of relaying the information. NauticaShad es 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  * Come to think of it, my reason for keeping is more sentimental than anything else. Truth be told, the replacement is simply of higher detail, and it seems silly than it can't be promoted because it isn't currently used in an article. I'll strike my vote. I still think the current FP can be used in some way, though. NauticaShad es 13:09, 3 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 T C 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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