Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/kamakura

Kamakura

kamakura,japan big buddha

clear and beautiful image; should be on the page for Kamakura, Kanagawa, japan

Nominate and support. - Jmills74 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It perhaps should be on that article, but why isn't it already? Being used in an article is a requirement for picture nomination. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a bit small - only 800px wide. Where exactly did it come from? If it's not contributed by a Wikipedian I'm inclined to reject it. It's pretty, but the small size...hm. Stevage 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. If it was higher resolution I'd have no problems with it. --Pharaoh Hound 13:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to size. -- bcasterline • talk 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too small, incomplete subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. as per Pharaoh Hound 203.211.68.217 07:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of User:211.30.199.85's edits are here on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Submitter appears to be the photographer, and has also been caught red handed for previous vandalism. Also, is there some sort of policy/rule regarding people with only a few edits/unregistered IPs voting? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those edits aren't vandalism, they're just a new user having trouble with editing. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Redquark 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cool image but unfortunatley it cannot be a featured picture as one of the requirements is an image at least 1000 pixels in size. --Mad Max 17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if that should be such a hard limit. I noticed the featured pic on today's main page (the apartheid sign) didn't meet that requirement. Perhaps it should just be a "desirable attribute" like any other. Stevage 18:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in the past - we've made exceptions for historically significant images where we may not have access to the original. I think that was probably one of those. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too Small. --Windsok 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Knees are cut off, and the whole pedestalis missing. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a great image but it's too small. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]