Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, not delisted
[edit]- Info Resolution much too low. (Original nomination)
Delist --129.187.45.97 08:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Anonymous voting not allowed, right? --JaGa 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)- Keep mitigating circumstances, plenty of wow factor, nicely composed, etc etc. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist It would take a lot of mitigating reasons not to delist an image that is only 700x472. --MichaelMaggs 12:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's great yet. --Beyond silence 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist per nom and MichaelMaggs. Lycaon 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Powerful image. 2 megapixels is a guideline, not a law. --JaGa 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- 0.33 Mpx is ridiculous, that's not about laws, that's about common sense. Lycaon 07:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- And yet, it's a valuable picture. Some, (perhaps most) of our featured pictures are featured (valuable) for their beauty alone, others are featured (valuable) for other reasons: their emotional impact, their historical significance, their education value. I cannot believe that having less pixels than (to pick a soft target) a typical macro shot of a pretty flower with a hoverfly on it makes this rare, perhaps unique, and hopefully unrepeatable image somehow not valuable. Regards, Ben Aveling
- Thanks for the fresh breath of sanity in a nitpicking world. :) --JaGa 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Being valuable is not equal to being featured. Would you feature this version wich is 50% reduced on the side? There has to be some limit. And I would also like to quote Doodledoo:"This is likely a film scan, though, so is there a higher resolution possibilty?". And lastly, it may be valuable, it may also be not, but just a staged image. Is there not something like sources/references for historical images? Lycaon 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- You've reduced the size of that picture by 75% and you're asking me how much you've reduced the value of it? The answer is, you've reduced the value to 0. We still have this picture, so the reduced picture is worthless. Had you also deleted this image, then the smaller image would have value, less than this one does now, but far more than 25% of the value that this one does. If someone does upload a better version of this image, then the value of this image would drop to 0 but until then, this image has considerable value. It is one of our "finest pictures". Regards, Ben Aveling 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's 33% of the answer to my questions ;-)). Lycaon 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is? I wasn't expecting it to be. There is a limit, but it isn't hard and fast. For some images, 2M may not be enough. For others, lower limits are appropriate. I can think of one photo which has about 3 pixels that aren't solid black that I would support if we could get a free copy of it - the shot of earth from a vanishing space probe. (Can't find a reference right now, sorry.) I think I have already addressed the issue of hypothetical could exist but we don't have a copy pictures. As for it being staged, I don't see how to answer that, it's like asking was this taken with a camera. For certain, the player was deliberately sitting where he was so that he could be seen and heard, that goes with performing. Does that make the image any less real? Even if he was posing only for the camera, the image would still be an expression of how one man reacted to what was happening around him - which certainly was very real. Most of our FP are 'staged' in some way or another. We choose the subject, where to place ourselves, perhaps we have to wait for the right conditions, sometimes conditions present themselves to us if we are ready for them, sometimes we can create the conditions we want. Is that closer to a 75% answer? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist I agree with MichaelMaggs and Lycaon. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 11:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Teeny tiny. This is likely a film scan, though, so is there a higher resolution possibilty? Doodle-doo Ħ 23:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the resolution is certainly very low, but as the picture has incredible much power, it is still featured for me. --my name 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Featured Pictures are about value, not size. While size might detract from value (and I agree, it does), it does not detract enough in this case imho. Freedom to share 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ben Aveling and the others --Jklamo 13:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Love the composition. Dori - Talk 20:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Size, CA --Simonizer 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
KeepLow resolution doesn't really detract from its power. -- 203.211.106.53 10:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)you are anonymous and as such not counted. Lycaon 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Delist Size. -- Ram-Man 23:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Voting time was allready over --Simonizer 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 Delist, 7 Keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Simonizer 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)