Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Men curling in 1909

Men curling in 1909 in Ontario Canada
Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2010 at 04:15:38 (UTC)
 * Reason:Although this is a bit small for our current size requirements it fits the historical exception and this is a good historical sports photograph, it has very good encyclopedic value and is of good quality for the time period it was shot in.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Curling
 * FP category for this image:Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle
 * Creator:John Boyd


 * Support as nominator --Cat-five - talk 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is below the minimum resolution requirement of 1000 pixels; that’s a first observation. My second observation is that its virtues (most of which escape me) are not enough to overcome such a prerequisite. It is certainly an *interesting* photo. It is certainly *historical*. I’m not possibly seeing how—even for 1909—that this is exemplary photography. The one virtue that really jumps out at me is that it does a great job of not having dark faces while still not blowing out highlights in the ice. But that’s not enough. Greg L (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree: It's very good for its time, and I'd support it if we had it a bit larger (and I'd also willingly do a restoration, if so). As it is, though, I'm uncomfortable making an exemption without some evidence of attempts to get a larger version failing. Has anyone contacted the Archives of Ontario, for instance? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar photos with much higher quality scans can be found at LoC.  Jujutacular  T · C 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not seeing any reason to overlook the small size and mediocre technicals. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediocre size can easily be overlooked for historically important pictures, this picture shows a casual game of curling at the turn of the century with actual broomsm, how can you quibble about side when the image cannot be reproduced without a time machine. Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Cat-five, why do you think this deserves to be featured? What specifically about this image or its subject(s)? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See above, this is a historical shot with great EV, it shows a casual game at the turn of the century. It is significant because it shows how the sport is played by anyone with minimal equipmenent (see the brooms). Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still failing to understand why you think this image is so important all of us should overlook all of its flaws. Why do you think curling is so important? Why 100 years ago? Tell the truth: Are you related to someone in this? ;) -- I'ḏ ♥  One  05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't know who any of these people are, I just found this image by going to random articles looking for good images. To answer your other question why any picture we nominate or to be more narrow why any historical photograph or why any sports photograph. It's a shot in time and it illustrates the subject well. Incidentally before someone claims I'm doing this for nationalism I'm American not Canadian although I do like syrup. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose to make the case that it's EV trumps the size requirement, there needs to be a case that (a) the image is truely irreplaceable and of significant value and (b) that there is virtually zero hope of getting a better scan of the file. I don't see where this picture fulfills both of those. — raeky  T  19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be open to delisting this if anyone can find a better nom but unless you can go back to 1909 I don't see how this image could be reproduced. I guess you could reproduce it by dressing up people in period dress with brooms and do a whole scene setup but it would be pretty fake looking. This is real. Cat-five - talk 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I mean there is bound to be more photos of this in existence from that period, likewise the original is probably held by that archive and still exists, thus could be scanned or already is scanned at higher resolution. Also I don't think the article would suffer that much if it was lost. — raeky  T  02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible, however if you're going to use that argument then go and challenge every single nomination and put every current FP up for delisting because there always might be a better picture out there. All I know is of the pictures I found of the subject this was of fairly high quality for the time period and it illustrated the subject as well as fitting into the encyclopedia article well which are the criteria we are supposed to evaluate images on. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frankly, something like File:Curling Canada Torino 2006.jpg tells you more about the game. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that on the article but the left side being cut off would garner a lot of opposes, people seem to be sensitive to even a tiny bit of cutoff of the subject. Cat-five - talk 06:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That and the low resolution wouldn't help it's cause. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing special, low resolution. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 06:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting for a WP:SNOW Closure Since the community apparently doesn't feel that this should be treated as a historical image for the purposes of the criteria and this cannot pass when strict criteria interpretation is imposed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cat-five (talk • contribs)
 * As the nominator, you can withdraw your nomination... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)11
 * I still don't understand why you think this image is so great and important. I bet if I trolled the internet I could find a better old curling photo than this, I bet if I trolled through Wiki and Commons I could find a similar curling photo to this, if not a better one. This just seems like a generic, old, just-above-snapshot quality photo about a sports topic, and they tend to be common and have many, many photos since the rise of the camera. For instance FPC has made exception of rare things like nuclear blast photos, hard-to-obtain and rarely-seen planets, but this just seems to be a casual, friendly game that happened a long time ago on an unimportant pond; Maybe if if this depicted a turning point in the history of the sport or Canada or had any historical importance at all other than it just happened a long time ago - time is mostly full of moments that aren't significant, do we need a featured picture of some clay hardening or of dust falling? I generally wouldn't mind supporting an image if the nominator could make a strong case for its supposed rarity, even if I were to be the only one to do so, but I feel that you haven't and am just confused by why you would even bring this here. You don't have to give up the ghost yet if size is the problem, you could just take this to an imager like GIMP and expand it, there are even some of those online (maybe save a PNG for quality), maybe ask someone like Adam Cuerden to touch it up.. Maybe suspend this, fix the image to come closer to criteria then come back? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  04:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * take this to an imager like GIMP and expand it, there are even some of those online (maybe save a PNG for quality)... Uhm, you are kidding, right? Please tell me I'm just missing the sarcasm here. --Dschwen 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called "trying to help," and from what I understand .Jpg causes loss and artefacting when edited too much compared to .Png, definitely not something an old, b/w image with a bunch of quality issues already needs. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What he means is you can't just resize an image to make it larger and expect it to get better quality! — raeky  T  21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely, but my point was at least size would no longer be the issue, not that there still wouldn't be a steep, uphill effort for Cat-five to prove that this should be featured. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)