Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg

Image:Long Billed Corella Beak.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2008 at 07:49:23

•  Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it is too small (it is 1.9Mpx and 1:5 downsampling is not per guidelines). Lycaon (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Your maths is a bit of a joke... It is over two megapixels and I reserve the right to maintain the non-downsampled photographs for private sale. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm no mathematician, but I was always taught >2 megapixels is not equal to 1.9 megapixel. Flying Freddy (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
      • 1415x1415 = 2002225 pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • 1 Mpx = 1024 kpx and 1kpx is 1024 px. Am I missing something? And BTW, guidelines state that downsampling should not be encouraged. You are perfectly welcome to upload small versions of your images, but don't expect them to be featured then. The private sale argument is a non-issue. If some want to use your picturse commercially and don't want to stick to the free licenses, they will pay anyway. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • 1 Mpx = 1000000 pixels not 1048576 pixels. Flying Freddy (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Ok, maybe I confused with Mb ;-). Still the downsampling is 1 on 5, which is IMO unacceptable. Instead of uploading the largest possible size (as per guidelines), some users make it a game to upload the smallest possible size they can get away with and that is sad and pitiable. Lycaon (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually the image is a square crop from the original rectancular frame, so 1:5 is an exagguration. The actual scaling means its more than 50% the size of the original on each dimension. If you have a look at some of my other current nominations there are some quite large ones there, so it varies from image to image. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Donarreiskoffer (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excessive downsampling --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support we have guidelines and if the image meets the guidelines, it should be supported. The author should have the right to downsample his images. Muhammad 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you should read the guidelines about downsampling... :( Lycaon (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality)." Mentions nothing about downsampling to maintain a commercial license. FWIW, the example image on the guidelines page for downsampling is a FP. Muhammad 18:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose smallish resolution -- Gorgo (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support would prefer larger, but no big deal. How do you turn this on (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size of image and composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Weak support -- DarkAp89  Commons 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

result: 6 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)