Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ardabil Carpet.jpg

Ardabil Carpet
Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 10:27:47 (UTC)
 * Reason:High Quality And Full of EV.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Ardabil Carpet
 * FP category for this image:
 * Creator:vam.ac.uk


 * Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is below our threshold for image size (1,248 × 2,411) however the technical challenges of photographing such an object are considerable. From the exif data, the carpet appears to have been scanned by the V&A -- it would be hard to photograph with a camera. So I think the exclusions to image size apply. The carpet is historically important and the image valuable for the article, so the EV is very high. Colin°Talk 13:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think an object like this COULDN'T be imaged at massively high gigapixel resolution? It's flat, easy to scaffold to get camera equipment over and can a massive image can be stitched together out of many smaller photographs.. not technically difficult for a museum to pull off, and has likely been done. — raeky  t  08:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps you want to raise the resolution threshold for artwork to "gigapixel" now? After all, Google Art Project shows it is technically possible. Just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't mean that's going to happen. Colin°Talk 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6 pixels an inch for a work is sufficiently high resolution to represent our best work? You going to drop the bar that low? — raeky  t  12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did think twice about this because of the low resolution. But I balanced that disappointment over the fact that this is one of the most important carpets in history and has been imaged flat-on rather than the side-glance that most folk at the V&W will get. It is just a judgement-call. Colin°Talk 12:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support High Quality--Mahan (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a historical indication and high quality-- Mahdi  talk  15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SupportHigh quality --Kasir talk 16:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Pine✉ 00:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a very precious image of a very precious carpet, indeed! In fact 12:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Piling on! Dusty 777 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Great addition to Wikipedia. It would be nice on the main page. -Fjozk (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Strange I'm the only person to bring this up.. but a carpet isn't exactly a 2D work, and a photograph of it likely is still copyrightable. The source of this image appears to be the museum in the UK, so copyrighted... Is there any precedent to state that a carpet/tapestry is 2D enough to not generate a copyrightable photograph? — raeky  t  08:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondly the carpet is 34½ feet by 17½ feet ( 10,5 metres x 5,3 metres), this is an absolutely tiny image, just barely squeaking past our current size requirements for such a HUGE object... — raeky  t  08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at this picture. Its size and position make it impossible for anyone to take a better photograph. We are completely at the mercy of the V&A releasing their scanned image online, at whatever size they are willing to provide. Wrt the 2D aspect, I'm no lawyer and ultimately that's a decision for another forum than FP, but it was scanned by a machine, which suggests a 2D quality and not a creative, copyrightable, work. Colin°Talk 09:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * High quality photographs of any artwork at a museum is likely technically impossible for anyone but the museum, your point? And copyright is ENTIRELY within the purview of a FPC nomination, since if it's likely to be deleted anyway, why nominate it? I'm fairly sure that things like this are not 2D works... — raeky  t  09:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, rather than WP:SHOUTing at me, go nominate if for deletion. -- Colin°Talk 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was hardly shouting. commons:User_talk:Dcoetzee is probably a sufficient answer to the copyright issue. But I'm going to Oppose on size since I'm sure the museum has scaled this image down for the web, and it doesn't meet our size requirements, it's an existing object that can be rephotographed, it's not technically difficult for the museum to do, if they haven't already. About 6 pixels/inch is NOT sufficient resolution for a featured picture of this carpet. I don't see this as being a case where nothing better can be expected which is the only clause to ignore the size requirements. Speedy Close. — raeky  t  12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support easily meets our criteria. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)