Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:The Scream Pastel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 17:13:14 (UTC)

Reason

Iconic. A 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file.

Articles in which this image appears

The Scream, List of paintings by Edvard Munch, List of most expensive paintings

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Creator

Edvard Munch

• Support as nominator – Iconic great granddaddy of all drama royals. I just know it will receive generous support here. This is the version that sold for $119,922,500 a couple of years back. Two failed nominations for the Oslo version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, I know that look! Thats the "Da $#@% you mean the USA is 17 trillion dollars in debt!?" look. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty soon we could be looking at serious money there ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• erm ... and is that what it takes to buy a vote here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Again? Sca (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a different version from the Oslo versions nominated before 1 first, 2 second. Second time round you opposed on the ground it had been published so often it's become almost a cliché, but not many clichés sell for $119,922,500. On both occasions the stumbling block was the lack of resolution, and indeed that won't be fixed until the holding museums issue high resolution images. But this was sold at auction and the on-line catalogue made available a 3,003 × 4,000 pixels 12MP file. That's plenty of resolution enough. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Money conquers all. Sca (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case the price tag came in at about $25,000 a square centimetre - isn't that just amazing? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The British Guiana 1c magenta on the other hand works out at about $1 million a square centimetre. Eat your heart out, Ed. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya know, that stamp might have a chance at passing FPC too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support, but I've got my eye on a little blonde bombshell I fancy next. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wish this was better used in the article. Discussed in text, but relegated to a gallery. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As an alt., how about a rectangular background detail showing just the two men on the bridge (or pier) and the sailboat in the water? Sca (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be happy to support. I always thought this was a bridge too, but in fact the location appears to be a road above Copenhagen harbour according to this interesting blog I linked in to to the article this morning. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: First this does not appear to have a free license or a clear title, at least for Wikimedia Commons. Secondly, compared to the two earlier submissions; this image is quite grainy, especially along the roadway or bridge (whichever). I find that an unpleasant and worrisome feature for a pastel. It now appears speckled. The image is not restful in any regard, so smooth colours at least make it tolerable to look at. I actually prefer choice one, which has been earlier reviewed and not promoted. Fylbecatulous talk 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean PD and The Scream is certainly PD in the US. It's true it can't go onto Commons until the beginning of next year when Munch comes into PD in Europe, but I'm not aware that's one of the criteria. First nom raised Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, one of the lamer copyright dramas in recent years, but it's unassailable that The Scream was 'published' within the terms of the Berne convention (i.e. made available for copying) before 1923.For example it was made available as a limited edition of prints in 1895. As for the resolution, it's at the mark and pastels at the mark 'are' 'speckled', that's the nature of their mark. Have a look at this Degas pastel Commons:File:Edgar Degas - Young Woman in Blue - Google Art Project.jpg. Why should you be worried about that? I should think it extremely unlikely that a Sotheby's catalogue for a work expected to sell in the high tens of millions of dollars carried a substandard image. Pretty sure at any rate we are not going to get better any time soon. Nomination 1 was for an oil painting and it failed on resolution concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can vouch that this is acceptable for hosting locally on the English Wikipedia as well. Don't get what is meant by "speckles"/ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Like speckled eggs: Bing has many images. Here is one not so well defined: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Tern_Nest_with_Three_Eggs_(2)_(3593033259).jpg. Good for eggs; not so good for images unless graininess is required. Fylbecatulous talk 13:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome to the demanding (and discerning) world of the visual arts, Fylbe. I still can't follow your objection to the image here. There's no noise in that image. That 'speckling' is merely the mark pastel chalks make on paper especially prepared to 'take' the chalk. Really I think you should strike your oppose here unless you can make a more substantial case. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fylbecatulous: I think it's disappointing that you haven't responded to a request to clarify your issues. I take it that means you don't have any further issues, and since the objections you raised have been adequately explained by myself and by an administrator at the forum, I think in the circumstances it would be courteous to strike your oppose. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Really, I do not intend to strike my oppose. I believe it would be courteous to now leave me alone. I am an editor worthy to cast a vote here and it has been thusly done. It's disappointing that this process is becoming an unpleasant experience. I speak for myself, of course. Others may speak on their own behalf. Fylbecatulous talk 14:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hi Corinne. Indeed I've noticed you around and I left you a message here saying how much I liked your User page. In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. That's how I see it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hervé Lewandowski

Hafs' trusty old DC

• @Fylbecatulous: I'm sorry to hear that your experience here has been unpleasant. If you could be more specific I should be happy to help in any way I can. You will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here are you not? It's difficult to judge from your contribution record because you are such a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, but that does seem to be so - that you made your first contribution here supporting Hafspajen's recent School of Raphael nomination, which I opposed on the grounds that it suffers a pronounced yellow colour cast on account of its processing (see thumbnails)? As an experienced Wikipedian you should know the etiquette about newbies joining forums. Really I must ask you to reconsider. When I make a mistake in this forum, I courteously acknowledge that I have so and make the appropriate remedial actions to set it right. With respect I courteously suggest that you ought to as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coat of Many Colours:. Surely, you are not serious. It appears my first participation was to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hans_Baluschek_-_Arbeiterstadt_(1920).jpg, involving a different nominator. Now I feel that I am being subjected to most unfriendly interrogation. Whether or not you believe this is to be a forum, it is still pertaining to Wikipedia content. All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes excellent nomination which I warmly supported as well, but that's still only less than a fortnight ago. I think it would be generous, tolerant and kind of you to admit your mistake here and strike your oppose. I can't see what's unpleasant about that. Only a little prick to one'e sense of self-esteem surely? And then you can be confident of my good will. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• C.o.m.c. - you will forgive me, but you are a new contributor here also, are you not? It was 23 June 2014 you made your first edit here. Just about a month ago. Drmies, please tell this editor not to intimidate other editors just because they vote for a nomination s/he is vigourosly opposing for reasons og her/ his own. Hafspajen (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I have to remind you that in the fact Crisco 1492 also votes support on the nomination you obviously trying to destroy. Just because you, C.o.m.c. doesn't think that nomination is OK; that doesn't mean that you have to put down this much energy on it - opposing it EVEN here, posting those painting even here. A simple oppose would have been quite enough, and in that case the whole thing wouldn't blow up like this. I think you go too far now. Crisco 1492, since when are we telling to editors what to do and how to vote on this project? Hafspajen (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coat of Many Colours:. I have read the guidelines for this project page. I cannot find where it states that a nominator may hassle a commentor into striking what might be considered a misguided vote. However I do see: Please remember to be civil, not to bite the newbies and to comment on the image, not the person. Since you allege that I am a newcomer and to that I agree, Please apologise for your incivility, biting of a newcomer and commenting about me: ie In this case we have a newbie wrong about everything and apparently unwilling to cooperate. It would likewise be kind,tolerant and generous of him simply to admit his mistakes, embarrassing and possibly unpleasant though that might be, and move on. You surely misread me as to my motives. After my requested apology is given, I shall be confident of your good will. Fylbecatulous talk 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asking you to concede what is clearly the case, that your objection had no merit i.e. to say there is no copyright issue and there is no problem with the image. In such a case it would be a courtesy to strike the oppose, especially when requested. I would not hesitate to do that. However it's quite plain you won't do me that courtesy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  talk) 03:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks Corinne. You are brave. Maybe you are right - C.o.m.c. is affraid that more editors to come along, see the image, and vote... Now when this nomination so effectively is killed, spitted on and dragged in the mud - what an annoyance would be if two more headstrong editors would come by and vote in the very last 24 hours, hahaha what a dissapoitment that would be, that would be really funny... Well, Insha'Allah, - "os mynn Duw". Hafspajen (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  CorinneSD: Thank you for your remarks Corinne. I'm sure that's a sensible analysis. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So here's where Fylbecatulous gets to speak for myself. Again, my motives have not been accurately described by others, but thank you, CorrineSD, for quite kind and affirmative comments on my behalf. Really appreciated. My reason for not reverting or striking my vote, (which was cast in the light of the best knowledge I have about the criteria, as dim as it may be), has nothing to do with defiance, embarrassment, pride, being upset, whatever. Here's the thing. There has become a perception by myself from lurking and from others who participate frequently; that the atmosphere is recently becoming difficult, unfriendly, snarky, and argumentative. A hostile environment where there used to be civility. This exchange for this submission is just one example.
  I am simply standing my ground and therefore not reinforcing what I perceive to be bad behaviour towards another editor (in this case, me), (but that has been duly noted by others as well). If I give in to being bullied or coerced and pinged or talked about in a bad light, and strike my vote, made in good faith, due to feeling intimidated; I have just reinforced the negative behaviour that we wish would go away. So I do not question authority, so if one of those admins happens along that keep getting pinged to this thread; and requests me to amend or strike my comments or vote, I shall do so on that basis, Otherwise, the nominator and one who has been hassling me, is no more an authority than I, so I intend to ignore. Perhaps an admin would also remove the two unrelated images that were added to make fun of Hafspajen's entry elsewhere. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 15:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Word count: 3,000. Sca (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And we haven't even scratched the surface yet ... Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]