Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Scream

The Scream[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2010 at 16:46:47 (UTC)

Reason: Simply because this is one of the most famous, acclaimed, parodied and recognizable pieces of art in history.
Articles in which this image appears: The Scream, Edvard Munch, Expressionism, Modern art, Western painting, Norway, Culture of Norway, Anxiety disorder, Mental status examination
FP category for this image: Artwork/Paintings
Creator: Edvard Munch

Support as nominator --Sir Richardson (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If this is or is close to the same dimensions as the original. --I'ḏ♥One 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume by “dimensions” you mean the aspect ratio. A quick Google-Image search shows it is close, if not perfectly correct. I was more concerned about the darkness. But the same search reveals that too is close. Greg L (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I almost forgot that how big an image appears on someone's computer will be different computer-to-computer depending on things like DPI settings, for some reason a computer running Windows like mine will apparently display an image larger than one running Mac[1]. I was suspicious of this having a 1000px dimension. With paintings I think it's usually better to get them as [realistically perhaps] large and unbroken as we can. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; This a big painting, I'd really want to see a larger file if we were to feature it. Also, I'd want to see a concrete explanation of just how PD this is- obviously, it is not PD in the source country, we know that, but it is claimed PD in the US as it was published prior to 1923 (for those who don't know, this means it falls into a rather odd category of being free enough for the English Wikipedia, but not free enough for Commons). Much as with this recent nom, that's not actually as simple as it may seem- "published" has a specific definition under US law, while questions about what was published and what is used here may (or may not- it seems Mike Godwin is yet to get back to us on that issue) be pertinent. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The full size version is 1000px wide which is enough to fill up my screen. If the intent were to have people be able to print off actual size versions to frame and hang in their living rooms then I could see the point of complaining about file size, but this is fine for what we need.--RDBury (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I really love the its big enough for me defense. Being able to study brush stroke and stucture of the painting adds tremendous value to a reproduction. This one does not have that. --Dschwen 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: the full size version is 813px wide. --Dschwen 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm shocked that a version of this already isn't an FP. It almost makes me want to, scream. Gut Monk (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment two lines above. --Dschwen 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've increased the image size to around 3000 x 3000. Higher is excessive and decreases its quality. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? That achieves nothing- there's no extra information, all you've done is stretched out the information that's already there. You've not improved the image in any way; I am reverting. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to WP:BITE the newbies. --I'ḏ♥One 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need to wag the policy finger three days later either. There was no biting, J just pointed out that upscaling is complete nonsense. Oh, right you suggested the same thing a while ago... ...well, don't take it personally. --Dschwen 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - *rollseyes* No, firstly I was talking to J Milburn, not you. Secondly, again you fail to assume good faith, Sir Richardson simply misunderstood the meanings of J Milburn's and my comments. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly J Milburn was talking to Sir Richardson, not you. So what?! That's how a public discussion works. Or do we now need special permission to address you? Secondly, again you fail not to wag your policy finger. Thirdly, I don't think even you understood your "comments". --Dschwen 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "I don't think even you understood your 'comments'?" How assumptive can you get telling me what I meant. I meant what I said: That my vote is for a full size digital version of the portrait, I never said stretch this version out and that that would somehow make it of equal quality to the real-life portrait, so you really need to stop with the trollish disruptions and putting words in my mouth, it got old a long time ago. Nextly, J Milburn's comment above was unnecessarily harsh, policy advises against that and it's a fair, reasonable rule, and as far as a "conversation" I'm allowed to disagree with his use of tone in that particular comment without having to ask your permission. --I'ḏ ♥One 17:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        What is unnecessarily harsh (and unnecessary, too) is your chastising. So please accept that I won't make my contributions contingent on your approval. You are missing the point over and over again. I did not put anything in your mouth, but you posted a link to a confused and off-topic rant (no72dpi, just read Dots per inch, and maybe you will understand). I did not imply you need permission to comment, that was you. Ahrgh! --Dschwen 18:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, I apologize and retract my own harshness, but no one likes to feel ganged up on. I only posted that link so it wouldn't look like I was making stuff up, not to pick on Macs. =) --I'ḏ ♥One 18:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't think I was overly harsh (I think that's something we have a right to be a little surprised about...) and Sir Richardson is no newbie. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh gosh, now you are talking like a computer scientist—"no extra information." We also use phrases like "destruction of data." Gut Monk (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hah, I'm a long way from a computer scientist :) However, expanding an image doesn't solve the problem that it's too small, any more than applying butter very thinly stops the fact that there isn't enough to enjoy your toast. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, you are telling me to apply the butter more thinly on my toast? Now you are talking like my wife! :-) --Dschwen 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some more possible versions[2][3] --I'ḏ ♥One 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]