Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Common Eggfly02 - melbourne zoo.jpg

•  Info Uploaded and nominated by Fir0002 (self nom)
•  Support --Fir0002 www 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose after a lot of thought into the matter. This image is below the resolution guidelines for a FP. There are no stated mitigating reasons. I'm sorry, your images are among the best we have, but the philosophy is not. I'll change my vote if the guidelines are changed to allow this image. -- Ram-Man 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines do 'allow' any image, we must judge them on their merits, the size guideline is just that - a guide to help us judge. We are here to judge the image only, I can not vote against the image just because I don't agree the the authors philosophy. --Tony Wills 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with you. The core goals of the commons should take precedent over anything else. Both the four freedoms and the project scope based on those freedoms are fundamental to the project. This proces, however, is not fundamental. Thus the guidelines are just guidelines, but the core principles of the commons are not. That said, I do want to take some more time to consider this issue, so I'm changing to Neutral for now. I don't want to rashly turn down good images if there is not a very good reason for it, but at the moment I think there is a good reason. -- Ram-Man 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After some thought, I've changed back to oppose. I understand that opposing based on project scope can scare off new people from the project and thus for the future I have to be very careful when using this argument. So it may seem unfair or whatever, but Fir0002 has been with this project for a long time and understands why I am opposing. I respect his right to his view and appreciate the difficulty that he faces. However, I must stick true to what I believe is important to the Commons: that the philosophical goals of the project are more important than the pragmatic goals. Someone who intentionally downsamples their images, even as high quality as Fir0002 does, does not match with the project's scope and the four freedoms, specifically not restricting use. To his credit, he freely admits that he is restricting use, and I respect that openness, which is why this isn't personal. It's very legalistic and inconsistent to not oppose all images that are downsampled in this manner, but for now I'll stick with those below 2MP, so as not to anger everyone who disagrees with me. -- Ram-Man 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Look at the eye detail. Clearly amongst the best images on commons. Its quality mitigates against its low resolution. --Tony Wills 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC
•  Oppose - Sorry but I don't agree on the quality. Colours are nice but detail is missing and image is somehow blurry, probably due to high jpeg compression. Alvesgaspar 11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose ack Alvesgaspar and too small with not enough mitigating reasons. --Digon3 20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Jon Harald Søby 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured - Alvesgaspar 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]