Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Argiope sp.jpg

File:Argiope sp.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 20:40:18

•  Info An Orb-weaver spider, Argiope sp spider sitting on a web decorations at the center of the web. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Umnik (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- H005 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good. Durova (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Restrictive licence (not best practice and contradicts the note at Commons:Licencing). Minimal resolution (it would be great to see more detail on the spider's body).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per Durova --kaʁstn 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good and uncommon view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Did you know that 1.2 only pictures are banned at german WP.   • Richard • [®] • 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good for us this isn't the german WP --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Rather sad, because it cannot be used at that project. Why that restrictive license ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • In what way is it more restrictive ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am also interested why you use this restrictive license? --AngMoKio (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very interesting shot, but rather small. A crop of the real action would leave the image below size requirements. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC). Restrictive license is not helping, but not the main reason for oppose. Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have ten other featured pictures with the same resolution and license. What has changed since then? --Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The visibility of the license issues has changed, I'm sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • There are at least two (1, 2) other images currently on the candidates' page with the exact same license and none has received any oppose based on "restrictive license". For what it's worth, you even supported one. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I can see no changes to the criteria and 1.2only is still considered a free license per commons. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Muhammad, somebody said: "Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants". Too bad not everybody knows how to use them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          •  Comment I would really like to comment on this, but after what happened last time... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Mainly because of licence & resolution. —kallerna™ 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You too kallerna? :( --Muhammad (talk)
    • Sorry :(. Why the licence? It would definitely be FP with better licence & resolution, and you can make both of them better with new upload. —kallerna™ 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If this passes as an FP, I will probably upload a higher resolution once I get faster internet in a month or so, but I am afraid the license will remain the same. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • just out of curiosity: how did you get your 9mb panos uploaded? This pic here in the original resolution wouldn't even have half the mb-size of your panos. Furthermore I'd be really interested why you insist on that license? Many of your photos are really great, also this one, but with all those restrictions it is really getting difficult to support. ..and as Richard mentioned on german WP those 1.2 pics aren't welcomed anymore. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Hehe, I spent hours uploading those and I had faster upload speeds then. Seriously though I spent more than 6 hours to upload this. I like this license because most of my images are also available for sale as stock images and a completely free license would render my sales ineffective and thus I would be unable to buy more equipment and upload better images. This is a win win situation for wiki and for me. --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Why we should feature commercial pictures and pictures which can't be used in a associated project (deWP) ?   • Richard • [®] • 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Wikimedia is a separate entity from deWP and there are different rules. It was deWP though that decided not to use 1.2only images. In my opinion, they are losing quite a large amount of pictures for a crappy rule. --Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • That license issue is a bogus reason IMO. Equipment is not that expensive. I made 950€ from my pictures which are all on commons under cc-by-sa in the last two years. I'm not using stock sites. You are better than me so you should have even better chances with free licenses. People use images all over the net when the license is not too restrictive (and with attribution → e.g. see here). This is publicity and the odd sale follows. I don't advertise my pictures, but interested parties still find them. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't want to whine but I've already spent app $1500 on equipment and for a student living in a third world country, that is a lot. (Average Tanzanian earns that much in 4-5yrs without expenses). With a restrictive license, rich companies who can afford to spend money, are prevented from exploiting photographers. Attribution is good but at the end of the day I am not gaining anything (apart from a little exposure). For the few earlier images I had released under the cc-by-sa, sure people use them but not one person has been willing to pay, and quite rightly so. If a single line of attribution allows you free use, why not? Sounds like slave labour to me--Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • In 95% of cases, my CC-BY-SA images just get treated as public domain for use. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Mainly because of arguments against license and resolution. :) →Diti the penguin — 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great EV, good quality and per Diti. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're back --Muhammad (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, Muhammad, it is not me. It is only only 1/4 of me , 1/4 that the African Wild Dog has not finished just yet.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ignoring the license debate (it is a valid license, after all); I look forward to seeing a larger resolution version of this lovely picture, so it can grace my desktop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Can someone explain to me just why the (perfectly valid) 1.2 license is not accepted on the German Wiki? And why this picture (and every other wiki) should suffer because they've made that choice? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The question is answered by Muhammad already. If 1.2only were just as free as the other license on commons there would be no reason for him to cling to it to protect his commercial interests. --Dschwen (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The focus of some people (not only) in the German Wikipedia is set on free commercial use, an idea which got strong in de since the cooperation with de:Bertelsman, Spiegel and de.wikipedia in the biggest lexical portal in Germany. Since then some of our Wikipedians struggled successfully to forbid the upload of GFDL 1.2 pictures on de.wikipedia. That does not mean, that it is forbidden to use 1.2 photographs from the commons as far as I see. Hundreds of them are used to illustrate articles of de. GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and is only a problem for commercial printers, as far as I see. Another problem for the opponents of 1.2 is that it is not possible to change the license without the allowance of the author/uploader of the pictures. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose low resolution on the main subject. And argiope is not a satisfactory id (or are we getting the full id also after this gets featured?). --Dschwen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Id has never been a FP criteria (though some think it is), this is not QIC --Tony Wills (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The id till genus is acceptable and we have numerous FPs id'd only till this level. Expecting a complete species id from a picture is impractical and impossible for the majority of the uncommon species. Re the low res on main subject, the whole image covers the subject. And as I mentioned, a larger version will be uploaded in max a month --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So what is the rush in nominating this now? --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose as Dschwen. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Muhammad will upload a version with higher resolution I oppose this one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I will upload the higher resolution over this one, and that too only if this one is featured. --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So should we make a deal here: you get a little FP sticker for all you pictures to make you happy, and in turn you upload full resolution for all your pics? Sorry, but this has a bitter aftertaste. --Dschwen (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I won't have much time later (presently on vacation). Once I know which of my pictures are the "best of the best", I can upload higher res of these only effectively using my time. FWIW, I think your tone could do with some practice. --Muhammad (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The licence issues don't belong here. The licence is valid and accepted on Commons and is not part of the FP criteria, so there really isn't any more to say on the matter here. As for the ID issues, we recently had an FP promotion for a completely unidentified cactus. It is not an FP requirement that there be a species ID—that's a QI rule. Now, with those two things out of the way, I support because it's an excellent image and satisfies all of the requirements. Maedin\^talk 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - the crop is ok, because it shows that the interesting weaving is not throughout the entire web. Downtowngal (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - as Downtowngal. A lower crop would hide the seemingly ordinary outer web, which presently adds to the photo. 72.173.26.4 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(please login to vote --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

•  Support License sufficient, crop good as outer area of web needed, size within guidelines, can't deny just because a better one might be uploaded. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)