Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Huli wigman.jpg

Here is a picture I took whilst living in Papua New Guinea for two years. It is of a Huli Wigman from the Tari Region of the

• Nominate and support. - Nomadtales 23:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a larger version than this? If it was larger I would expect it would easily become a featured picture. |→
    GMT
    )
• Oppose looks like a very nice image, but I'm afraid it's just much too small. chowells 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support awsome.I think this is an exceptional case and the size can be excused, though a larger size would be great. -Ravedave 01:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice colors, and it's plenty large enough for use in any article (I doubt anyone will be making thumbnails much larger than 600px). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-6 01:44
• Oppose. Nope size cannot be excused, especially not if the photographer still has a larger version which he just did not upload yet. I'll change to support once he did that. I'm sure he didn't take his 0.51498 megapixel camera to papua new guinea. As I said earlier, it is policy to upload highes quality possible. And for the thumbnail argument:
  WP:WIAFP mentions quality reproductions so I'm afraid tha standard is a little higher than quality thumbnails. And what abut the consent of the depicted person (I remember at least two cases (geisha and girl on tram) where this becam a major issue during the discussion)?. Apart from that: great shot :-) --Dschwen 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In the image history I can see that the version uploaded first just had 300x400, so this is definately a step in the right direction, but let me repat it again just upload full-res. --Dschwen 06:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I cannot say I'm enthusiastic about the whole image size discussion, especially considering we have contributors who do upload high quality pictures at super-high resolutions. IMHO uploading limited resolution copies of your works seems like halfhearted commitment to free licensing and I fear this might set a precedent to other contributors. But I cannot force anyone to upload full res and the picture certainly is quite good, hence a weak support. --Dschwen 09:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (see below --Dschwen 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Support. Anything that doesn't fit my monitor in its full resolution is big enough. Image has nice colors and detail on the man's skin. What if the photographer doesn't want a higher-res image released under a free license? That shouldn't mean we exclude a perfectly fine image. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have to comment on that. I don't want to exclude the picture, merely motivate the uploader to provide a higher res version. And if that is not possible I think it should not become a featured picture. Secondly, at the risk of sounding sassy, but the resolution of your monitor is not the standard by which FPCs are to be judged.
    WP:WIAFP 5. states the need for sufficient quality for reproductions. Why should we limit the quality of the images and decrease their usefullness as lets say illustrations for WP print derivatives (i.e. WikiReaders). --Dschwen 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • So if they don't upload a higher resolution you are excluding it. That's the effect an oppose vote has. Besides, as far as I can determine, a picture that fills my screen is sufficiently large to reproduce on a piece of A4 paper. Are we going to cater to people who want to make A2 posters? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 ^(Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as long as a higher resolution picture is not provided, would support larger version - see comments of Dschwen. Mikeo 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Size problem is now almost fixed. I agree with Dschwen that we should not motivate contributors to upload smaller resolution versions of their pictures. Mikeo 15:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A Higher resolution version does exist, but it is not with me at the moment (on a cd back at home). I am loath to upload as I really don't want to contribute a high-res version under a free licence. I think it is a nice photo and would hope to one day be able to sell it. If I had checked the feature picture criteria first and read the "more than 1000px" part then I would have made it fit that .. but I didn't and 900x600 is the best i can currently do until I get back home on the weekend. I am not that far out from making the criteria at this stage. Nomadtales 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this isn't the best place to discuss this, but seeing as it has been mentioned now, I assume that you would still be able to sell this image even if you gave it a free licence. As I understand it, the issue would simply be that someone could take the image on wikipedia and print it instead of buying it through you.. However, since I would imagine most photography is sold as a print, for example at a sunday market, your potential to sell an image that you have already released on a free licence may not be that diminished..? Or have I understood it incorrectly and you would be breaking your own licencing agreements by using selling an image you have previously released? ;) Just wondering! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that 1000px is an absolute minimum. I tend not to support such small images. chowells 19:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a minimum for you, but clearly not for others. So, it is not an absolute minimum. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-08 03:01
• Support, excellent photo.
  talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I can excuse size for an image of this quality. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 00:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is big enough for me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Please do upload a larger version when you get the chance, even if it isn't the full resolution.--ragesoss 17:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• New Version Uploaded. It is bigger and fits the criteria. Hopefully this will sway the opposition. Cheers all. Nomadtales 09:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that I actually don't have a super-duper high-res version of this image. The original is a Kodak Elitechrome slide (remember those?) and I need to get it rescaned at something more than 1200dpi. I am afraid this is the best I can do until then. Nomadtales 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now this makes me feel slightly bad. In this case don't apply the halfhearted commitment to yourself. And thanks for a grat image! --Dschwen 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although still a bit small, it's big enough. A wonderful addition to the Papua New Guinea article. ~MDD4696 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also, nice photo. |→
  GMT
  )
• Support. At the bottom end of ideal resolution but very high quality photography overall. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's certainly striking and the size is fine IMO. --BillC 21:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Huli wigman.jpg Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]