Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Phoenicopterus ruber.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Phoenicopterus ruber.jpg, featured[edit]
Nominate
Image:Lightmatter flamingohead.jpg is currently featured, and I find that Image:Phoenicopterus ruber.jpg is slightly better. If you agree, then vote support. If you like both pics, also vote support. Chamaeleon 19:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Support Chamaeleon 19:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Support — Very nice picture. But I think it gets even better when you increase contrast a bit. —Juhanson 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think this flamingo is better than the Featured one. --Erin (talk) 21:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Neutral There is no need, to unfeature the Image:Lightmatter flamingohead.jpg, because there is no problem with having to featured pictures of a flamingo. norro 22:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ah OK. I just thought that nobody would support this one without un-featuring the other one. Feel free to vote for this one, and we'll vote separately on the question of what to do with the other. Chamaeleon 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need to do so. The other one is featured. This vote is not dependent on that. If you think, the other flamingo photo should not be featured, you can think ob starting a deselection, but i think it's still an excellent shot. I would suggest, to remove your de-list statement at the beginning of this vote, because in my opinion it's capable of being misunderstood. Regards, norro 26 June 2005 09:15 (UTC)
- Ah OK. I just thought that nobody would support this one without un-featuring the other one. Feel free to vote for this one, and we'll vote separately on the question of what to do with the other. Chamaeleon 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose featured picture looks way better. -PedroPVZ 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Support, just so long as we don't de-list the current one. James F. (talk) 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Copyright notice? LoopZilla 26 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)
- What about it? It's effectively CC-BY. Nowt wrong with that... James F. (talk) 27 June 2005 03:03 (UTC)
- Effectively or precisely? LoopZilla 27 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)
- It is under a freer licence than the GFDL. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 08:47 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is correct. 1) The GFDL doesn't require you notify the copyright holder. 2) The GFDL cannot be revoked once applied. If you retain the copyright of your image, you theoretically could. I've asked this question here: Commons_talk:Licensing#Notify --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)
- 1) Did I say there were no conditions? 2) You retain the copyright of your image under the GFDL. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is correct. 1) The GFDL doesn't require you notify the copyright holder. 2) The GFDL cannot be revoked once applied. If you retain the copyright of your image, you theoretically could. I've asked this question here: Commons_talk:Licensing#Notify --Quasipalm 27 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)
- It is under a freer licence than the GFDL. Chamaeleon June 27, 2005 08:47 (UTC)
- Effectively or precisely? LoopZilla 27 June 2005 07:53 (UTC)
- What about it? It's effectively CC-BY. Nowt wrong with that... James F. (talk) 27 June 2005 03:03 (UTC)
- Support Striking. --Tysto 1 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
- Neutral, due to license. -- Schnee 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
- OK, I'll vote oppose on all GDFL photos on that basis! Chamaeleon 6 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured -- Joolz 01:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
